SALESMAN'S CLAIM.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 56, 7 March 1934, Page 10

SALESMAN'S CLAIM.

DAMAGES SUIT FAILS. ACTION AGAINST SHAREBROKERS. (By Telegraph;— Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Tuesday. Judgment was given by Mr. E. Page, S.M., to-day, in the case of Cyril Sydney Brice, against V. B. Mclnnes and ComLimited, sharebrokers, by whom he was formerly employed as stock and share salesman. Brice claimed £300 for alleged wrongful dismissal. Decision was given against plaintiff, and £24 paid into Court by defendant company was returned to it. At the hearing of the case, evidence showed that Brice undertook to sell debentures put on the maket by the Investment Executive Trust of New Zealand, Limited, for whom the defendant company were sole brokers, but learning that an auditor and later one of the directors of the Investment Executive Trust had resigned, he sought explanations. The replies did not satisfy him and he gave notice that he could not sell the debentures until his questions were satisfactorily answered. Negotiations ended when he received notice that his services were terminated. The magistrate said in his view the case was disposed of on the facts. Plaintiff was told he was engaged on a weekly basis, and he (Mr. Page) thought the proper interpretation of this was that he was liable to be dismissed on a week's notice. Mr. Page said he entertained no doubt that plaintiff was actuated by the highest motives in refusing to sell the debentures, but as a matter of law, the magistrate thought plaintiff was not entitled to refuse to go on with the sale of the debentures he had been engaged to sell, and when his services for that reason were dispensed with, to succeed in an action for damages for wrongful dismissal. If a servant did not approve of the wares his master vended, it was open to him to leave his employ. He could not refuse to go on with his work, and at the Bame time recover damages for dismissal, consequent on such refusal. Plaintiff's refusal amounted, in Mr. Page's opinion, to repudiation of contract of services, and justified the defendant company in putting an end to it. Judgment was given for the defendant company.