UNUSUAL CLAIM

Southland Times, Issue 22038, 10 June 1933, Page 6

UNUSUAL CLAIM

INJURY IN CALLING ALLEGED. PLAINTIFF NON-SUITED. (Per United Press Association.) Christchurch, June 9. A claim for £lOO was heard before Mr Young, S.M., in the Lyttelton Court this morning, the plaintiff being Harry Huston, a watersider, who alleged that five employers of labour had combined to injure him in his calling. The defendants were Arthur Knight Dyne, stationmaster, Lyttelton, Robert C. Skipage, agent for the New Zealand Shipping Company, Walter Scott, master mariner, Joseph Garrard, branch manager for Kinsey and Company, and Thomas Henry, wharf superintendent for the Union Company, all of whom denied any combination in refusing to give plaintiff work. Counsel stated that in March plaintiff was bound over on a charge of assault. He had then thrown a knife along the table and the knife unfortunately had struck a foreman and plaintiff was charged with assault. The Magistrate, Mr Mosley, had then stated the case was not as serious as it appeared. Defendants considered the penalty imposed was not sufficiently severe and 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 plaintiff but to defend certain other persons no action for damages would lie, provided no illegal means were used. Plaintiff must prove there was conspiracy with the object of doing harm to him and of this there was no proof. It was denied that there was any combination, though it was admitted that on some occasions some 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 who might cause trouble among their own employees on the waterfront. The Magistrate said that 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 plaintiff but to protect other workers.

The application for a nonsuit was upheld.