ACTION FOR WRONGFUL DISMISSAL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9152, 6 September 1888, Page 3

ACTION FOR WRONGFUL DISMISSAL.

Before Dr. Giles, Resident Magistrate, at the Resident Magistrate's Court yesterday, Captain A. D. McGillivray sued the Auckland Tug Company (in whose employ he had been as pilot) for the sums of £40 (or three months' salary) for wrongful dismissal, and £16 for one month's wages. Plaintiffs statement of claim set out that, according to the terms upon which he had been engaged he should have been given three months'notice of dismissal, or three months' wages in lieu of notice. The defendants dismissed him on the 29th of July, as from the 31st of July, and they then owed him £16, which he now claimed, with the £48 also previously mentioned. Mr. F. E. Baume appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Theo. Cooper for the defendants. A. D. McGillivray, the plaintiff, gave evidence as to the terms of his engagement with the Auckland Tug Company, and deposed that an agreement was made by which three months' notice on either side was to be given, and a document stating the terms had been signed by Mr. Compton. In answer to a remark by Mr. Baume, Mr. Cooper stated that no such document had ever been in existence. The plaintiff further deposed that he had been dismissed without notice by Mr. Compton, managing director of the company. Under cross examination, witness stated that he had been regular in his duties, and had not given cause for complaint. He was not trying to float a steam company in June last. The matter had boon placed in the hands of a friend. Mr. Compton had been "nagging" him as to the way in which he fulfilled his duties. Ernest Davis and Thomas Carroll, of the Awhina, gave evidence as to Captain McGillivray being on board the tug in time to go out to meet the mail steamer on the 15th July. This was the plaintiff's case. F. E. Compton deposed that the plaintiffs statement as to a written agreement was false; no such document had ever existed. He also deposed to various acts of negligence on the part of Captain McGillivray, whose duties were to do all he could for the company, and not to do merely a pilot's duties. He considered that the plaintiff's conduct on the occasion of the assault (which lias already been considered in Court) was such as to justify his dismissal. When Mr. Baume, plaintiffs solicitor, called upon witness, he (Mr. Compton) offered to give him £16, the wages duo to plaintiff, but Mr. Baume would not accept this. Captain Anderson deposed that the directors of the Tug Company had come to the conclusion that Captain McGillivray was not doing his duties properly : be was peculiar, and he had not been there several times when the steamer left. The company might have been left in a serious position through neglect of their servants— having entered into heavy bonds. Crossexamined : The companies which McGillivray was endeavouring to float would not interfere with thp Tug Company. He would not be afraid of anything that McGillivray would float. It McGillivray could float anything h© (witness) would assist him, but anything that ho would set going would not cause witness any trouble. Captain McGillivray had certainly borne the reputation of being a good seafaring man, and a good pilot. C. B. Stone, merchant, deposed that Captain McGillivray had been endeavouring to float a company for the East Coast trade, and had asked witness to become a director. Captain Campbell, master of the tue Awhina, also gave evidence as to certain neglect on the part of the plaintiff. Crossexamined : The salary of the pilot was £16 a month, and he was to make himself generally useful. Witness and Captain McGillivray were the best of friends. One morning, about a couple of months ago, the tug had to wait off the North Shore from about a quarter past six till eight o'clock, whistling for the pilot to meet the mail steamer. A man was put on shore, and Captain McGillivray was found at his house, eating his break fast. The morning was a foggy one. It was a fact that on ono occasion, when the steamship Mariposa from San Francisco was signalled, McGillivray put off in the tug without witness, but he had no authority to do so, and the boat, which was only about 30 feet from the wharf, was brought back again. The Awhina had often to leave at a minute's notice. Counsel having addressed the Court, His Worship said he must set aside altogether the question of three months' notice; it seemed impossible for him to hold it to be proved. He thought that the acts of neglect alleged against the plaintiff had been proved, and there had therefore been sufficient grounds for dismissal. Plaintiff was, however, entitled to the month's wages, and judgment would therefore be for £16 for the plaintiff. Mr. Cooper submitted that costs should not be allowed, as the sum of £16 had been offered to Mr. Baume to Mr. Compton, who, however, did not accept it. Mr. Baume said it had been offered conditionally. Eventually costs were ordered on the lowest scale, and amounted to £2 7s.