WATERSIDER BRINGS CLAIM

Stratford Evening Post, Volume II, Issue 265, 10 June 1933, Page 6

WATERSIDER BRINGS CLAIM

Alleged Combination to

Injure

NON-SUIT APPLICATION UPHELD press Association.— Copyright, Christchurch, Juno 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 nonsuit was upheld. . The defendants were Arthur Knight Dyne, stationmaster at Lyttelton, Robert C. Skipage, agent for the New Zealand 'Shipping Company, Walter Strott, 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 Hutson work.

Counsel stated that in March Hutson was bound 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 anv combination. It was admitted that on some occasions some of the employers had j-ofusod to employ Hutson, but this did not prove combination not to emnloy. The employers had acted to protect their i 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 but to protect other workers. The application for a non-suit was upheld.