DISMISSED ENGINEER

Evening Post, Issue 52, 2 March 1935, Page 11

DISMISSED ENGINEER

CLAIM FOE DAMAGES

EVIDENCE FOR DEFENCE

Evidence for the defence by James Cable, chairman of directors of Cable and Co., Ltd., occupied the whole of yesterday afternoon at the hearing in the Supreme Court before the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) of the action m which James Marshall, superintendent engineer, of Wellington, alleges wrongful dismissal against the company. Marshall claims £3000 damages, and; secondly, an order that accounts be taken of the earnings of the defendant company's business and that he be given judgment for the share of the net profits to which he contends he is entitled under an agreement with the company.. '. : , Mr. O. C. Mazengarb, with him Mr. H. J. V. James, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. J. F. B. Stevenson for the company. ' . "THE EOTTENEST PROPOSITION." James Cable, chairman of directors of Cable and Co., said that in June, after the contract for the repair of the Golden "Harvest. had been let to his firm, Marshall, when riding in a motorcar with him, said-he expected a bonus of at least £250 in respect of his services on the job. Witness stopped his car and told Marshall it was the rottenest proposition he had ever had put to him. "I refused point blank to promise him a cent," continued Mr. Cable. "Further, I told him that if he was not satisfied with the conditions of his employment to get out of the car and get out of our service. On seeing my attitude he became apologetic, and told me that he would leave it to my better judgment to do .the fair thing by him on the completion of the .work." . Mr. Stevenson: Was there anything said about his loyalty?—-Yes. I told him I refused absolutely to buy his loyalty. ■.■■:■■ In reply to his Honour, witness said he regarded this incident as a very serious matter. His Honour: Why didn't you sack him right off?— For two reasons. One was that I was at work contrary to my medical adviser's advice. We were having wretched weather and I didn't know how long I could continue at work. The other reason was that we were under a penalty of £150 a day) if we didn't complete the work in time,j and it was realised by the directors j that if I cracked up and if Mr. Marshall was dismissed we would be in an unholy mess. Up till then we understood he was an expert at this class of work. ' -'■ ' . j WORK CRITICISED. Witness went on to criticise Mar-! shall's handling of the work on the Golden Harvest. He said that in the end he had had to take charge. The] way Marshall carried out the repairs showed great lack of judgment and incompetence. • •• -j In reply to his Honour, witness said he considered that Marshall's incompetence on that job cost the company anything up to £250. He added that if it had not been for his (witness s) ability as a mechanical engineer and organiser the job would not have been 'finished in time and his firm would not have done so well with the contract. Witness referred to other happenings as evidence that Marshall had not carried out his duties properly. He had not completed his evidence when the Court adjourned until 10 a.m. on Monday. . ~ " ' •'" - '; ' .