Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

CLAIM UNDER A GUARANTEE

Robert Hannah-and Co. "sued David Andrews for £132 15s.' 8(1. under a guarantee. •'Mr. Blair represented plaintiffs, and Mr. • • Dunn"appeared on behalf of defendant. It- was alleged,.nn behalf of plaintiffs, that a 'guarantee in writing was given by defendant to plaintilfs for the amount of the current account of J. l'\ Andrews, bootmaker;' Otaki (brother of defendant), who died in June, 1900."' Thu giving of a guarantee was not denied, bift it iViis contended lor the defence: —(1) That tlio guarantee was not a, continuous guarantee, but was limited to the first item of £13 worth of goods delivered at the time of the giving of the guarantee; (2) that, owing to the fact that plaintiffs had continued to do business with deceased's widow, and that she had 'made payments against her own current account amounting to more than the sum owing; by deceased, these amounts must be appropriated to tho deceased's account, 'and so result iii' the. discharging of defendant from his liability (if aiiyi. under tlio guarantee) (3) that, owing to plaintiffs' business having- been formed into a private company two years after .the giving of the. guarantee, the guarantee .was void.' -' His Worship intimated that, he would deliver'judgment on January 30. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. 1 John Jillct was ordered to pay Picot Bros. £13. Us. Id. oil-or before February 13, in dcr fault 14 days' imprisonment. ' No orders were made in the following cases John Fox v. John Bray, claim £i 7s. lid.; and Irvine and Stevenson v. Isaac Hunt, claim £8 9s. ud. RESERVED JUDGMENT. ■ ' ALLEGED WRONGFUL DISMISSAL. An important judgment, in which the question at issue was whether a mine manager's misconduct justified,his dismissal, was delivered by Dr. Ai'Arthur yesterday. The plaintilf, James Naukiveil Dunn, had alleged that the defendants, the Wei-, iington Mines, Ltd., agreed, on- September 17, 1907, to employ him as manager from the date of his arrival at their nunc, near Black's Point, at £-1 10s. per week for the first three months, and thereafter at £5 per week, and agreed also to supply him with a house to livo in, On September 24, however, the company discharged him and refused to allow liiin to carry out his. contract, and bad paid him oil account of same £1 10s. only. Wherefore, lie claimed- to recover £71 iOs.' damages from the.company. llis Worship, in the course of his judgment, said that plaintilf was appointed on the Friday preceding September 17, and that'ho. arrived at Rcefton on September 19. The weight of evidence went to show that, plaintilf was not sober on his arrival, nor during the period from the 19th to 22nd. ln the opinion of the Court plaintiff acted as manager, under his appointment, from September 20, on which day ho drove to the mine. A witness named Seymour had stated that plaintilf sent four men to him to work at the claim. These riion wanted to know if it was all right, as plaintiff was drunk when lie engaged them, ft had been held, His Worship pointed out, that there was no fixed rule of law defining the degree of misconduct, which would justify dismissal from service, and that it was a question for . the jury whether the degree of misconduct, was inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of service-so as to justify dismissal. There, might b" misconduct on the part of a servant which would not justify the determination of tho contract of service, but misconduct inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of service would justify ' dismissal. The .question whether the misconduct proved established the right to dismissal must depend upon facts, and was a question of fact. In the opinion of the Court tho facts proved justified the plaintiff's dismissal. Tho plaintiff was offered reinstatement, which ho declined, although he denied that, but one of tho directors and the secretary were positive as to the ofTer of reinstatement. Judgment would bo for tho defendant company, with costs totalling £8 os. Od. Mr. Young represented plaintiff, and Mr. Johnstone actcd for defendant comnaiiv.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19080124.2.22

Bibliographic details

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 103, 24 January 1908, Page 5

Word Count
685

CLAIM UNDER A GUARANTEE Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 103, 24 January 1908, Page 5

CLAIM UNDER A GUARANTEE Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 103, 24 January 1908, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert