Interpreters Busy In French Damages Claim

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28766, 11 December 1958, Page 24

Interpreters Busy In French Damages Claim

(New Zealand Press Association)

INVERCARGILL. Dec. 10. 1 The evidence of two of 11 witnesses in a claim, brought by a French employee of the company building the new Bluff harbour, which will be heard in full in Paris, was heard in the Magistrate's Court at Invercargill before Mr G. A. Nicholls, 6.M. - Interpreters were busy in the Court for,none of the witnesses gave evidence in English. Seven of them are French nationals and four are of Belgian nationality. The Belgians preferred a Dutch to a French interpreter. The action is by Jean Stercky, at one time head pile driver for the Societe Nationale de Travaux Publics, who is claiming against the company for alleged wrongful dismissal. His claim consists of 500,000 francs (£421 4s Id at last Friday’s exchange rate) for improper terminiation of his contract, 20,000 francs (£l6 7s) for holidays, and 11,850,000 francs (£9983 3s) for indemnity for dismissal. The hearing is being held' under the provision of the Foreign Tribunals Evidence Act, 1856 (Imperial). Mr J. R. Mills is representing the Solicitor-General and Mr R. J. Gilbert, of Dunedin, is representing the contractors, Stercky is not represented. Mr Mills said repeated requests had been made to the French Embassy to ensure that Stercky would be represented, but no-one had been instructed.

The taking of evidence under letters of request from France in civil matters is governed by a convention made between the United Kingdom and France in

1922 and extended to New Zealand in 1928. There were eight witnesses for Stercky and three for the defence. There were originally five witnesses for the defence, but before the fixture was made, the other two had returned to France. When the Court adjourned after nearly four hours today, depositions were still being taken from the second witness for the plaintiff. The company claims that the dismissal was justified because Stercky refused to carry out urgent work, incited other workers to refuse to carry out work and engaged in a reprehensible campaign in connexion with the payment of overtime on a bonus system.