BOYCOTT OF A WATERSIDER

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19513, 12 June 1933, Page 11

BOYCOTT OF A WATERSIDER

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FAILS. By Telegraph—Press Association CHRISTCHURCH, June 10. A claim for £IOO was heard by Mr H. A. Young, S.M., at the Lyttelton Court yesterday, the plaintiff being Harry Hutson, a watersider, who alleged that five employers of labour had combined to injure him in his calling. The defendants were, Arthur Knight Dyne, stationmaster at Lyttelton; Robert C. Skipage, agent for the New Zealand Shipping Coy; Walter Scott, master mariner; Joseph Garrard, branch manager for Messrs Kinsey and Coy; and Thomas Henry, wharf superintendent for the Union Coy., all of whom denied combination in refusing to give plaintiff work. Counsel stated that in March plaintiff was bound over on a charge of assault. He had throwh a knife along a table, and the knife unfortunately struck the foreman, and plaintiff was charged with assault. The Magistrate (Mr Mosley) had then stated that the ease was not as serious as it appeared. Defendants considered the penalty imposed was not sufficiently severe, and plaintiff hus had been unable to obtain work. Counsel for defendant parties moved for a non-suit. It was argued that if the real purpose of the combination was not to injure plaintiff, byt to defend certain other persons, no action for damages would lie, provided no illegal means were used. Plaintiff 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 some occasions come employers had refused to employ Huston, but this did not prove combination not to employ him. ■The employers had acted to protect their own interests. They considered Huston 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 combination its real purpose was not to injure plaintiff, but to protect other workers. The application for a non-suit was upheld.