CLAIM FOR £3000

Manawatu Standard, Volume LV, Issue 80, 2 March 1935, Page 2

CLAIM FOR £3OOO

DISMISSAL OF ENGINEER. EVIDENCE BEING HEARD. Per Press Association. AVELLINGTON, March 1. Claiming tha.t without reason ho had been humiliated by his employers, accused of incompetence and muddlement, and eventually dismissed without receiving the full past and future payments for his services under an agreement which still had some time to run, James Marshall, superintendent engineer, began an action in the Wellington Supreme Court yesterday against William Cable and Co., Ltd. Marshall claims £3OOO damages and asks for an order that the company’s accounts which ho had queried over the last few years should be reaudited so that lie might be given his due share of the net profits. In reply the company contends that the dismissal was fully justified, and alleges neglect and mismanagement bv Marshall, particularly over his part in certain large contracts such as repairs to the wrecked Golden Harvest and work in connection with the new railway station, James Smiths, Ltd.’s new building, a.nd the Government Life building. The hearing was adjourned until this morning. The Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) is on the Bench. Mr 0. C. Mav-engarb and Mr H. J. A T . James are counsel for Marshall, and Mr J- F. B. Stevenson for AVjlliam Cable and Co., Ltd. . . To-day AVilliam Ogilvie _ Urquliart, secretary of Cable and Co., in evidence, answered questions relative to the contract for the steelwork of the now railway station at AVellington, in connection with which the delenco alleges that Marshall was negligent. Mr Ogilvie admitted that several errors had occurred in the order for the steel. The errors had bean made in the drawing office, and there had been an error in the typing. An error had also been made by the manufacturers, the wrong material having bean supplied. Ihe defendant company had been advised by the Fletcher Construction Co., contractors for the station building, that owing to possible difficulties, arising hi connection with the foundations, Cab.o and Co. should not send the specifications forward too far in advance. On May 3 tho company had not starteu fabrication of the steel. Plaintiff was not responsible for that. Witness did not agree that if Cable and Co. had been able to send orders more in advance the delays' would not have occurred. The British manufacturers wore unable to supply some of the material at the time required. They were unable to roll certain sections, because of lack of sufficiont tonnage. Counsel proceeded to question witness about certain letters which had been written urging the steel companies to send forward the material as quickly as possible.