WATERSIDE DISPUTE

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 962, 3 May 1930, Page 1

WATERSIDE DISPUTE

DECISION RESERVED IN DAMAGES CLAIM EVIDENCE FOR DEFENCE Decision was reserved by Mr. Justice Smith in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon in the claim for damages made by a watersider, Thomas Moylan, who alleged victimisation against the Auckland Waterside Workers’ Union. Moylan (Mr. J. F. W. Dickson) claimed damages at £6 a week from Harch 25, 1929, to the date of judgment, £3OO damages for loss suffered, and £2OO general damages from the union and its “walking delegate,” Robert Irvine. Mr. J. J. Sullivan and Mr. P. J. O'Regan conducted the defence. Evidence by the president of the union, Charles Stephen Morris, said that he personally had asked Moylan several times to explain to the union the sending of a letter containing uioney to the foreman of a shipping company. Mrs. Moylan, who had accepted responsibility for the letter, had come to witness’s house twice and the plaintiff twice also to discuss the trouble. The men on the waterfront had been incensed over the letter and xt was regarded as an attempt to gain Preference in the allotment of work. The union officials had been extremely careful not to injure Moylan’s Position, Morris added. It was a fact, however, that neither the executive nor hie members of the union had believed "toylan’s explanation of the letter until r l6 plaintiff’s sworn evidence had been heard in Court. Ernest Jaggs, secretary of the tevedore firm of Nearing and Comn°t remember having been approached by Moylan for engagement, although it was possible that he ouid not distinguish plaintiff among other men. i e shi PPirig foreman who received "aij l,l William O’Brien, said he re- ** ruu letter as an insult. other evidence was by shipping comin ny forem en, who did not recall havMoylan employment. One tiff i e would have employed the plainwo Moylan a PP r oached him for