DAMAGES CLAIMED

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21976, 10 June 1933, Page 15

DAMAGES CLAIMED

QUESTION OF EMPLOYMENT AN UNSUCCESSFUL ACTION. (Pee United Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, June 9. A claim for £IOO was heard by Mr H. A. Young, S.M., at the, Lyttelton Court this morning, the plaintiff being Harry Huston, a waterside worker, who alleged that five employers of labour had combined to injure him in his calling. The defendants were Arthur Knight Dyne (station master at Lyttelton), Robert C. Skipage (agent for the New Zealand Shipping Company), Walter Scott (master mariner), Joseph Garrard (branch manager for Kinsey and Co.), and Thomas Henry (wharf superintendent for the Union Company), all of whom denied combination in refusing to give the plaintiff work. Counsel stated that in March the plaintiff was bound over on a charge of assault. He had thrown a knife along the table and the knife unfortunately struck the foreman, and the plaintiff was charged with assault. The magistrate who hen/d the case (Mr E. D. Mosley) stated that the charge was not as serious as It appeared. The defendants considered that the penalty imposed was not sufficiently severe, and the plaintiff had thus been unable to obtain work. Counsel for the defendant parties moved for a nonsuit. It was argued that if the real purpose of the combination was not to injure the plaintiff but to defend certain other persons no action for damages would lie, provided no illegal means were used. The plaintiff must prove that 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 some occasions soma employers had refused to employ Huston, but this did prove a combination not to employ. The employers had acted to protect their own interests. They considered Huston dangerous and a menace and that ho might cause trouble among their 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 pur-, pose was not to injure the plaintiff but to protect the other worker,?. The application for a nonsuit was upheld.