A JOURNALISTS CLAIM.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 12377, 16 December 1905, Page 10

A JOURNALISTS CLAIM.

(srxciAi. to "rat rtxss") WELLINGTON, December 15. A case of special interest to newspaper proprietors and / journalists, waa • heard in • the Supreme Courc by Mr Justice Cooper to-day. J.*' W. Slevwright, late editor of: the "New Zealand Mail," sued the "Now (Zealand Times" Company tor £312, portion 6t ono year's sajary (£416). The question for a special jury of four to decide was what was a fair end. reasonable notice of dismissal for an editor. Mr Sievwright had received three months', notice. He wanted twelve, and claimed that he bad been dismissed at the caprice of the new management. Among the witnesses were Mr J. Liddell K.elly editor of the "Now Zealand; Times/ and Mr W. H. Triggs, editor of the Ghristchurch " Pre*6/' Mr Myers appeared for the plaintiff and Dr. Findlay tor the "Times' , Company. Inbpen■ing his case Air Myera said his client woe employed, by the defendant company as editor of the "New Zealand Mail,'' and for isome time as day editor of the. "New Zealand Times." Owing , to the caprice of a new management' his services were dispensed with, three months' ; notice being given. It was intimated that there was no question roused as to plaintiff's ability, or steadiness, or/character, and that the, only question to go to the jury was as to what was a reaeonable notice to give to a man occupying the position the plaintiff held. In aadreseing the. jury for the defence, Dr. Findlav contended it would be unfair to journalism on both, eidee (master. and man), if it was laid down that twelve, months' notice was necessary. Mobility marked, in a great degree,-the conditions of life in New Zealand, and it was no true test to set up English condi-; tions as a guide for us. .. In summing' up hie Honour said, if he could,express an opinion,' end it seemed to mm he was entitled to do so in this case, -it did seem to him that there was no evidence on which the jury could find that plaintiff was entitled to twelve months' notice. Whether he was entitled to more than three months' notice was another matter. ; The jury, after twelve minutes'.deliberation, returned a verdict that thro© months' notice was not sufficient, and were of opinion that cix months' notice. should iiave been given. His Honour 6aid he quite agreea' with the verdict. Judgment vraa accordingly entered for the plaintiff for an additional £104, with costs on the lowest scale.