Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

ALLEGED CONSPIRACY.
CONTRACT WORK IN A MINE.
A MURCHISON CASE.
In the Supreme Court yesterday, before
Mr. Justice Burnside and a special jury of
five, the hearing was continued of
action in which a party of mining con-
tractors claims damages against certains
unions, union members and officials, and
traders of the Youanmi and Sandstone
goldfields, for alleged conspiracy.
The plaintiffs in the action are Owen
Jones, Charles Pratt, John McKenzie.
George Zilko, Nicholas Geo. Fistonvich, and
Jack Verga, and the defendants W. White.
E. Coakley, R.S. Brown, Arthur Funnell.
Charles Bayley, Wm. McGee, Don. McGee.
Hugh Buxton, Alf. North, Joe Weir,
Charles Noad. Bert Longmore, John Moher,
John Smith, Daniel Toomey; John Wetler,
Louis Madorsky, Mrs.. J: E. Finlayson.
Mrs. Charles McGregor. John'Flynn, W
ter King, Oscar Walters,. and Theos. J;
Rochester, Youanmi., Miners' Union of
Workers, Sandstone, Miners' 'Union of
Workers (A.W.A.), and the Amalgamated
Workerse(Murchison district) Industrial As.
sociation of Workers
The statement of claim sets out that the
defendants bonspired unlawfully and mae.
liciousy ,against the plaintifs. and used coc
ercion to conipel them to abandbn the pur.
suit of their, trade as miners, and, by un
lawful and malicious threats of violence,.
caused them to depart from the district
where they had been employed.
The defendants deny the allegations.
.Sir Walter James, KC. (with him Mr.
N. Keenan, K.C., and Mr. J. P. Maxwell)
appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. W. H.
Ackland for the defendants Flynn; Toomy,.
.Madorsky, nd 'Smith, while Mr. C. A.
Hudson and Mr. J. L. Walker appeared
for the remaining defendants, with the ex-
ception of White, W. McGee, Noal, and
Bayley.
On the resumption of the hearig yester-
day Sir Walter James applied' for the ad-
mission of evidence of acts alleged to have
taken place after the issue of the writ on
the part of certain of the defendants, on
the ground that any overt act subsequent
to the issue of the writ would affect ma-
terially the measure of damages which
might be awarded.
Mr. Hudson said that the question' arose
Against whom was the evidence to be ten-
dered? If it was a special allegation against
a particular defendant, of something which
occurred after the issue of the writ against.
the whole of the defendants, the evidence'
could not, he submitted, be given against
them.
His Honour held that the evidence was
admissible if it tended to establish against
one of the defendants an act alleged to
form part of a conspiracy alleged to exist
between all. All the defendants were re-
sponsible for the acts of each and every one
of the others, assuming that the action was
established in the conspiracy between them
all. In the recent case in which the Fre-
mantle Lumpers' Union was concerned , evi-
dence of the continuation of the refusal to
allow the plaintiffs to work right down to
the date of the trial was given, and no
objection was taken.
Harry G. Walton, mine manager and
superintendent, continuing his evidence,
said that before the men went into "con-
ference" there were signs of discontent on
the mine, as several of the men absented
themselves from work.
To Mr. Hudson: He knew early in 1914
that there were general objections to the
contract system. The contract with the
plaintiffs was to sink the main shaft for a
distance of 130ft. more or less. There was
a system on the mine of paying extra wages
on a contract basis. Objection was taken
to contracs which provided terms similar to
those embodied in the agreement between
the plaintiffs. He wrote a letter to the
union concerning conract work, as he was
particularly anxious to employ that system
on his mine. He had never said that he
would close the mine down if he could
not have contract work. Formerly, the
particular work on which the plaintifs were
engaged proceeded at the rate of about
10ft. a- fortnight, but during the first
fortnight of the contract 27ft. were car-
ried out. When he made the offer to the
meeting of June 3 to break the contract
with the plaintiffs, provided that they were
reinstated in the union, and a fresh ballot .
taken on the question of contract, he had
no recollection of having been asked whe-
ther he would abide by the result of the
ballott. It was assumed that he would do
so. The plaintiffs were liable to dissmissal
at any time, the same as other employees.
To Mr. Ackland: The strike, which com-
menced on June 4, lasted until just after
the war started. Smith, the butcher, had
admitted to the witness that the strike
had hit him very hard, and that, he had
gone down for £400.
Jack Verga, an Italian, and one of the
plaintiffs, that when he was at Gwalia
he had been working on contract, and
sever, heard any objection by the unidn at
that centre to contract work. He began
work on the Youanmi mine as a machinist.
The witness then gave evidence corrobora-
tive of that adduced by McKenzie on the
previous day respecting the contract on
the Yoanmi mine, and the subsequent
events which led to its cessation, and the
departure of the plaintiffs from the dis-
trict. Evidence of alleged acts occurring
subsequently to the issue of the writ was
also given. At the time he was working
on the Youanmi mine, the witness said he
had about £200, but as a result of what
had taken place the whole of his savings
had dissapeared.
To Mr. Hudson: He did not know that
the union objected to contract work.
The witness was cross-examined at some
length by Mr. Hudson and Mr. Ackland.
and re-examined by Mr. Keenan.
Mary Verga, an Englishwoman, and the
wife of the previous witness, said that it
cost about £70 to equip their camp at
Youanmi. On June 8 a party of men
came to the camp. Some days previously
the defendant Brown and another man
came to the camp, and asked her husband
to break the contract at the mine. On
June 5, when she went to pay Moher. a
butcher, she saw a list of names in the
shop, which included the name of her hus-
band, which Moher explained had been
handed in by a man who he thought was
a unionist, with instructions not to serve
the persons indicated with any more meat.
Moher said that he could not supply her
in future. Proceeding, the witness detailed
further instances relating to the refusal
of storekeepers to serve her with commo-
dities, and the demand made by the de-
fendant McGee on June 8 that they should
leave Youanmi on the following morning.
At Sandstone she and her husband, Zilko,
and Fistonvich tried to get accommoda-
tion at three hotels, but they were refused.
They left Sandstone on June 12, and came
to Perth, returning subsequently to Sand-
stone, when the Black Hand letter was
received by her husband.
Nicholas George Fistonvich another of
the plaintiffs, produced two sets of naturali
sation papers. His evidence was similar
to that tendered by McKenzie and Verge.
The witness was still under examination
when the Court adjourned to 10.30 this
morning.
$