ALLEGED WRONGFUL DISMISSAL.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIV, Issue 254, 26 October 1893, Page 5

ALLEGED WRONGFUL DISMISSAL.

CLAIM FOR £100 DAMAGES.

An important case was called on at the Resident Magistrate's Courb to-day before Dr. Giles and Capt. Nortbcrofb, R.M.s, the action being that of George Her<cott v. Arthur C'oave and Co., claim £100 for alleged wrongful dismissal. Mr Hugh Campbell appeared for the plaintiff and Mr F. E. Bauine for the defendants.

Counsel for the defence applied for an adjournment, in order to take evidence in the South, bub this was refused. George Heacofct, the plaintiff, deposed that ho was engaged by the defendants, and commenced work as a canvasser on April Ist last. He continued working for the " New Zealand Craftsman " until the end of May last. He received a letter from the defendants, enclosing £10, for two weeks' salary and expenses. Witness said that the letter further referred to moneys alleged to have been received by him on behalf of the late proprietor of the " Craftsman " (Da Reany), prior to his entering into the agreement with Cleave. IrrAugust he received a letter from the dofendanfcs dismissing him from the employment of Cleavo and Co. He was ready and willing to go on with his work under the agreement for the remainder of the term, and he had regularly and properly performed all the duties devolving on him under that agreement. At the time he received the letter enclosing £10, he was entitled to £2 more (£l2 in all) for salary and expenses. Mr Cleavo had nob paid him that £2. Aboub that time he received four sums of money amounting to £2 la 6d. He duly accounted for that sum to the defendant. He had accounted for all the monies he had received on behalf of the defendants. He retained th« £2 Is 6d in payment of the money which Mr Cleave had not sent him. He had not had any employment since the letter of dismissal. Mr Cleave paid him his salary j of £3 per week only up to the 27th of May. Wituoss had been seeking for employment, but aaw no prospect of getting any. He claimed £100 damages for breach of contract. Cross-examined by Mr Baume, witness stated that he was associated with the " Craftsman" before Mr Cleave took ib over. At that) timo Mr De Renzy was the proprietor, but it was proposed that he should ba made a partner. On Mr Baume questioning witness as to whether that was the first time he had been disxnisfed from the "Craftsman,'' Mr Campbell objected on the ground that the question was irrelevant, and consider - able discussion ensued on this point. Ultimately Mr Baume was allowed to put tho question. After some hesitation witness admitted that he had been dismissed from the "Craftsman " and that he had brought an action against tho proprietors for wrongful dismissal. Messrs Cooper and Devore had acted for him in that case and a statement of defence had been filed and served on his solicitors. The action, however, waa nob proceedod with the plaintiff paying the costs. Mr Baume explained that in that statement certain allegations were made against witness for having received certain monies on behalf of De Renzy for which he had not accounted. Dr. Giles said that from documents before him, the reason assigned by the witness for hia dismissal waa that" he had threatened to bring an action against Do Renzy for alleging that he had not accounted for certain moneys. Further examined by Mr Baume, witness stated that he kept a record of all moneys ! received. Tho amounts read by Mr Baume bad nob beon received as far as he could toll. Mr Baume then produced several receipts for sums which had been paid to witness. Tho latter admitted that in several instances when he had received money he had not made a note of the fact. As an explanation of his conduct witness said that ns De Renzy waa in his debt he considered he was quite justified in keeping as much money as he could. His solicitor had advised him togdo this.