SEA COOK V. UNION.

Hokitika Guardian, 28 June 1926, Page 1

SEA COOK V. UNION.

COURT’S DECISION. [by TEIiEGEAPH —FEE TRESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, June 2G. Judgment for the defendant was given orally by the Chief Justice, Mr C. P. Skerrett, in the Supreme Court to-day, in tlio civil action brought by John James Stuart, ship’s cook, for the recovery of a total-of £667 from William Thomas Young, Union Secretary, and the Wellington Seamen’s Union, the plaintiff alleging that, as the result of a, conspiracy of the defendants with the crew of the steamer Tees, he had lost his employment. Tn order for the plaintiff to succeed, said His Honour, it must bo shown: (!) That the defendant, Young, and the Union had conspired with the crew of the Tees to induce the determination of the contract, with the cook by the owners; and 02) that the defendants had aided and abetted the crew in ail unlawful strike with the same object.

“The question is,” said His Honour, after an extensive review of the evidence. “whether it ran ho taken as true that Young said the ship would not gel ii crew if the cook returned on hoard, implying that the Union would take steps to prevent the vessel obtaining a c row. T think the question must be answered in the negative. The object was to get a crew, and Young was there, to state the views of the crew. It is not- unlikely ho was regarded as their spokesman, and the language attributed to him is consistent with what he stated ho went there for.”

J 1 is Honour dealt further with the evidence, and said it was clear that neither the plaintiff nor Mr Kennedy (Secretary < f the Qpoks and Stewards Union) had been aware of the explanation of the statement eventually made hv Young to Bennett that the crew could then L? obtained. The explanation was made quite clear by Hie telegrams between Young and the firemen.

“Tt is proper for me to point out,” said His Honour, “that Young owed no legal duty to the plaintiff to bo helpful ill this dispute. There was a dulv ho owed to the Union, but the

solo duty lie owed to the plaintiff was to abstain from taking any active steps in inciting others to secure the plaintiff’s dismissal. T am imnbk’ to find any trace of such incitement in I’c evidence. The statements attributed to Howell (assistant Secretary of iL>"> Seamen’s ['nion) are not sufficient to satisfy me that the Union had mk.ni steps discouraging the men from .' filing oil the Tees unless the cook ' : s discharged. Tn these circumstances, 7 hail? to find for the defendant, i . I do so with costs according to witnesses' expenses and disbursement*, and allowing £7 7s for the second clay.”