CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

Southland Times, Issue 21073, 3 May 1930, Page 7

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

ALLEGED VICTIMIZATION. ACTION BY WATERSIDE WORKER. (Per United Press Association.) Auckland, May 2. A claim for damages by a waterside worker who alleged victimization against his union was further heard by Mr Justice Smith in the Supreme Court to-day. Plaintiff was Thomas Moylan, commonly known as Paddy Miles (Mr Dickson), a member of the Waterside Workers’ Union. He took action against the union and its "walking delegate” Robert Irvine (Mr O’Regan, of Wellington and Mr Sullivan) on the ground that defendants had entered into a conspiracy to prevent him from earning his livelihood on the waterfront. He claimed damages at the rate of £6 per week from March 23, 1929, to date of judgment; £3OO damages for loss suffered, and £2OO general damages.

Mr Dickson continued his cross-examin-ation of defendant Robert Irvine who said that Miles had refused to come before the officers of the union and tell his story. If Miles had done so, it would have made the task of the executive in getting the men to . work with Miles much easier. Witness continued that he had told the men that they were wrong in taking up the attitude of not working with Miles.

His Honour: Then I take it you dissociate ■yourself from that attitude of the men? Witness: Absolutely right throughout the piece. His Honour: Did you know that if Miles were employed the whole body of men would refuse to work with him?—Oh no, only individual men. Witness said he shared the popular opinion about Miles’ action in sending money by letter, but he accepted the statement that his wife wrote it.

' The president, of the Waterside Workers’ Union, Charles Stephen Norris, was the next witness. “As president of the union, I have always stood for order and discipline and the growth of the port,” declared witness. If Miles had come to the executive witness believed that he could have eased the position for him. Mrs Miles saw him at his house once and Miles twice. Mrs Miles wrote a letter of apology under his direction and accepted responsibility for the original letter that caused the trouble. After hearing further evidence the judge reserved his decision.