NONSUIT ALLOWED

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 126, 30 May 1928, Page 15

NONSUIT ALLOWED

CLAIM AGAINST A COMPANY In his claim against thb Wellington Woollen Manufacturing Company, Ltd., for £300, alleged to have been the price 'agreed upon for certain patterns supplied by him to the company, or £300 damages for alleged wrongful dismissal, John William Boyce, a tailor,' was nonsuited by Mr. Justice Smith in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence, ,Mr. A. Gray, K.C., who appeared for the company, submitted that a prima facie case had not been established. His Honour, he said, had determined that there had been no variation of the original contract of engagement, and there ■ could not be any action for wrongful dismissal.' The plaintiff had been engaged as a chartcutter, and the defence had ample evidence to show that it was part of his duties to prepare patterns. Counsel pointed out that the plaintiff's salary had been increased from £6 to £7 10s, and submitted that there had been no evidence to show what the patterns were worth. The patterns had not been used by the company. Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. A. Dunn, said that Boyce was told when he joined the company that he would not have to prepare his own patterns. The evidence •to that effect had not befen contradicted.' In the course of his judgment, His Honour remarked that if the plaintiff -expected to have permanent employment for a long period he should have consulted a solicitor and secured a contract in writing. The plaintiff had admitted that he expected a continuity of employment and an increase in salary, and he had admitted that he had received the additional salary. Under those circumstances it was clear that the consideration expected by the plaintiff for the supply of the patterns had been given by the company. There was no option but to nonsuit thq plaintiff. His Honour added that he was sorry for the plaintiff, who no doubt had expected em•ployment for a long period. ! ' . '