WATERSIDER’S CLAIM FAILS

Hawera Star, Volume LIII, 10 June 1933, Page 3

WATERSIDER’S CLAIM FAILS

WORK REFUSAL DISPUTED 1 LYTTELTON COURT CASE (By Telegraph—Press Association.) QHRiTSTCHURIOH, June 9. A claim for £IOO was heard by Mr Young, S.M., in the Lyttelton Magistrate’s Court this morning, the plaintiff being Harry Hutson, watersider, who alleged that five employers of labour had combined to injure him in his calling. An application for a non-suit was upheld. „ . . . The defendants were Arthur Knight Dyne, stationmaster at Lyttelton, Robert O. Ski page, agent for the New Zealand Shipping Company, .Walter fetrott, master mariner, Joseph Garrard, branch manager for Kinsey and Co., and Thomas Homy, wharf superintendent for the Union Company, all of whom denied combination in refusing to give Hutson work. Counsel stated that in March Hutson was hound! over on a charge of assault. Hutson threw a knife along a table. The knife unfortunately struck a foreman and Hutson was charged with assault. The. magistrate (Mr E. D. Mosley) then stated the case was not as serious as it appeared* The present defendants considered the penalty" imposed not sufficiently severe and Hutson thus had been unable to obtain work.

Counsel for the defendant parties moved for a non-suit. It was argued that if the real purpose of the combination was. not to injure Hutson but to defend certain other persons no action for damages would succeed provided no illegal means were" used. Hutson must prove there was a conspiracy with the. object of doing harm to him, and of this there was no proof.

It was denied that there was any combination. It was admitted that on same occasions some of the employers had refused to employ Hut-son, but this did not Drove combination not to e-"u----ploy. The employers had acted to protect their own interests. They' considered Hutson dangerous and a menace and that he might cause trouble among their own employees on the waterfront.

The magistrate said he agreed with the contention of counsel for the defendants. He would go further and say that if there was a combination its real purpose was not to injure Hutson" hut to protect other workers. The application for a non-suit was upheld. . . ;