LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 335, 23 October 1908, Page 4

LAW REPORTS.

FULL COURT. ALLEGED WRONGFUL DISMISSAL. PAPWORTH v. HOROWHENUA PUBLISHING CO. MOTION FOR NEW, TRIAL. 'At a sitting of tho Full Court yesterday, when Mr. Justice Williams (president) and Justices Donniston, Edwards, Cooper, and Chapman wore present, an application for a now trial of the case between David Smytlie Papworth, of Levin, journalist (plaintiff), and the Horowhenua Publishing Company, Ltd., (defendants), was concluded. ■ Mr. D. M. Findlay (with him Mr. H. H. Ostler) appeared in support of the application and Mr. A. Gray (with him Mr. M. Myers) to oppose. The facts, in this case were as follow :— Papworth sued the company for £500 damages for alleged wrongful dismissal from its employment as manager, editor, and reporter - or its newspaper, the " Manawatu Farmer." Papworth declared that'he was engaged for lree years from Soptember 20, 1907, at a salary of £350 per annum, and hi May last his services -were dispensed with. The case was heard beforo Mr. Justice Chapman and .a common jury at Palmerston North on September 17. The defences raised were breaches of agreement and neglect in the dischargo of /lis duties. Tho jury awarded Papworth £225 damages. she grounds of the company's application for a new trial were as follow :— (a) That the verdict was against' the: weight of evidence; (b) that the. damages awarded were excessive; (c) that the learned' judge was wrong in leaving-to tho jury tho question whether tho company was justified m dismissing Papworth "without leaving "to tho jury issues of fact upon which such justification was alleged to bo based, and should have, upon the facts admitted; directed the jury to find for tho company; (d) that mato-i rial evidence had been discovered since the trial, (which could not 'have been' foreseen or; known before the trial) that Papworth W the course of his employment with the company carrying on an advertising agency business on his own account, without the knowledge or consent of the company, and that ho received I urge sums of money by way of commissions from such business. , J 'i 'ho. course of an affidavit, Papworth set forth that lie had relinquishedhis 'advertising agency business in Wellington before lie entered into any agreement with the company, and that tho moneys ho had received were payments duo to him for services rendered before ho entered into the employ of the company. ' Mr. 1' indlay, i n opening tho case-for the company, said he did not now propose to argue that the damages were, excessive. With rc . s pect tq t] lo uext ground, ho would submit that if certain allegations had been put • /. E! j as ' S3u es of fact, it might have justified the Court in pronouncing a verdictfor the company. The total capital of the company was £3000, of which, prior to the hearing, of the. action, £1000 had been subscribed. For some time before the company was formed, the newspaper ,was published under private management. Papworth had desired to-purchase tho concern', but the com-. P a '!y had preferred to engage his services rather than sell to him. In addition to the other positions held by him, Papworth was managing director, of the.company. Ho had declared that his duties occupied the whole of his time. From May 1 tho paper was to be published daily, instead of tri-weekly, and was then to recoive a salary of £400 per annum. Counsel then proceeded to examine the evidence adduced at the trial. Argument for the applicant' had just concluded when the Court adjourned until 10 30 this morning.