A MANAGER'S DISMISSAL

Evening Post, Volume XCVIII, Issue 2, 2 July 1919, Page 8

A MANAGER'S DISMISSAL

SUPREME COUJBT ACTION.

. Sitting in Chambers ■ to-day af the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) heard the case of Thomas August Petlierick v. the Arcadia. Picture Company, Ltd., Dannevirke. The plaintiff, who was manager of the company, was dismissed on the 7th May, and given a cheque for £27 10s, being wages to date and one month's pay in lieu of notice. He was also asked to hand ovei the company's property in his possession. On presenting the cheque at the bank the following morning he found that payment had been stopped. In an action in the Supreme Court he claimed the amount of the cheque, and the com pany applied ex parte to his Honour Mr. Justice Chapman for leave to defend. This was granted upon the affidavit of the' company's secretary in which it was stated that the cheque was given on con dition that plaintiff handed over in good, order the company's property m his control. The defence was filed stating that £2 15s was for wages and the remainder of the cheque gratuity on that condition,: which he failed to carry out. The plain--tiff therefore, moved to set aside the order to defend on .the ground that there was no xeal defence to the action.

. Mr. D. M. Findlay appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. H. F. von Haast for the defendant company. When argument was concluded, his Honour held that.the ex parte leave had been granted on an incorrect statement, the defendant company, not .having disclosed -to his Honour Mr. Justice Chap man the condition on which the cheque was to be paid. The latter was not handed to;plaintiff upon any condition, the company rneroly directing A certain thing to be done. The statement in defence that part of the amount of the cheque was a gratuity was incorrect, the money being erivei} in lieu of notice, and there was nothing to show that plaintiff had kept or damaged any property, nor had any counter-claim for damages been filed. The order would.be set aside, with £2 2s costs; and if the defendant company wMieft ts ruise the questions set up, security for the amount claimed and costs must be given. .