STRANGE SUIT BY A NON-UNIONIST.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXVII, Issue 10973, 12 June 1903, Page 6

STRANGE SUIT BY A NON-UNIONIST.

K*'t. -,\-.s- "V' -~ -i -? ', ." y ' . v. - • • ■ . A case has-been- heard in Melbourne in; which John- Martell, miner, claimed *S1000 ! damages -from the Victorian Coal Miners'! . 'Association. It arose from the Outtrimj cpiil jniiifers' strike, plaintiff alleging: that; tJirowgh.'^he jusklicuma acts of the defend- ! i*nta hfc wasjdeprived of employment. Mrj . • Jjuritice d'Jge^kett, , in , giving , judgment, < .said, that, the. .members of the AssociationrlfaflL determined they would not work with j '4h£e£ men who had bioken the rules of j their Association, ..and 'that they deterniined to get the men out by informing! manager so. He did not remove! them, and Jth.e men then , struck. As a I gofo'equenW of the strike, , there was no i era,p'lQylhenfc^Qr plaintiff, -who left the. djys-f •tjfjLcj;. 3&; ,dj<l , ;n.ot , afterwarfls < ,'get , em- 1 plpyibe^ijecfwscs' the manager knew that; Tvpuld. recur.; The case! contract p'jain- ' tiff milfcttftifccQinpsnj; it Vasiiot ,put' ihatvwafwC-Tfcrsnftply > came io this : ..Was jt an-iHegalVaiot "for .-these men to refuse to rWiQiiiJlSirtell?, kartell mighjb, no doubt, itefyve JDeen-rlghLin considering the .men' fob^&J' in '.refusing -to take what; 1 , the employers' fofferedi. 5e might have Jtnoughb fh^t, tbje^m-pney, had been really, misappro-pirate^.'^-.iElje-fwas,; no "4oubt, unpopular. H^Tfinaily'said Jte would go and work He Vent tp/j^u%trim, andvhei wished to join i^etuniomi , The committee of the Association. wiß»t**into the • matter, and ' did not «eem tovfrate .found anything untrue in his «tei^«mient§,. "but they decided' itdt to refieiy6 him into the union. His Honour could not say that the union acted unreasonably ,in .the matter, but it was not .material, to the issue for Mm to decide : wiiether their decision was reasonable or unreasonable. The union, did not. behave. a# they should have in. not informing Mar"ft^li'Of tafeir and laying Jura to •fittd ii;out afterwards. Dealing with the . question of whether malice was the dominant motive; of , the union i^i. objecting to Martell being, employed, His Honour t pointed out J;hat the, injury inflicted on himi'such as_it ( .was, was, in eompi^n with that inflicted on tie other two men ob- , jected--^,'' arid, from the evidence, it did *tpt Appear., that any. special hostility had j .^ecn, shown toward Martejl. Three men including Martell, - had all broken the .tinipniat rules, and nad become marked g xn&n in consequence. His Honour had, prcijriimaly.^wp/essed the., opinion thai" the Evidence disclosed no case 'against the Jtipefs and he was / still oi jt4iat> /Dpi^fon. .■ As to . the individual defeidante, Hiß Honour found that they were ,'tt.oii prompted to act as they had out Pf injtire plaintiff or fte two i)^e^.meta^3)ut that there .was a desire to etreigthen .combination by exclud 7 ing,.ffcoiitf!«mpioyment .those persons who th^ey^u|)poßed were not fit to be associated vith^enT^/ln liis opinion, the effort to /Btrengt^en their .Association was not an 4l£gai,act, and he, thought nothing more than that had been done m this case. He, tifpiefqre, found thajb no actionable wrong Jtea'd.'beea done b,y the individual defend,antir,;.but the, acts of the defendants, as a matter of fact, certainly brought about tl»» low "of, the plaintiff's employment, and -thfey l W& e * he cause ©f the company refuging* to re-employ bm. Bights so asserted did not make defendants liable to .damages fa, au action at law. H9nour gay« ft- s vprdiet for defendants, .with costs.

, A. bictcle is mat » necessity, neither is s tfu£ telephone, hot the telegraph, nor the train; but it 46 mighty, convenient when tou want to "get there quick." So see that you buy the BEST— * BUDGE- WHiffWOBTH.— (Advt.)