A QUESTION OF NOTICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13846, 4 September 1908, Page 7

A QUESTION OF NOTICE.

AN INTERESTING JUDGMENT. At the Magistrate's Court yesterday, Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., gave judgment in the action brought by a machinist named Wileon against H. •<*. Wick and G. A. Hicks and T. and E. W. Hocking, trading as H. C. Wick and Sons, timber merchants, of Newmarket, in which plaintiff claimed damages for alleged wrongful dismissal. Mr. W. E. Haekett appeared for plaintiff, Mr. R. McVeagh for H. C. Wick and G. A. Hicks, and Dr. Bamford for Hosking Brothers. The circumstances of the case were that plaintiff was approached by defendants (before the Hoskings joined the firm) by telegram, and offered 10s a day wages. Eventually the defendants Mired offering him £3 10s per week "constant." Plaintiff broke up his home in Chrtetehurch, and entered defendants' service on January 22 last. Tho Hot kings joined the firm at the beginning of May. Plaintiff remained in the company's employ until July 31, being paid tlie wages stated. At that date he was informed that the firm could not retain his services at £3 10s per week, and they offered him £3. This he refused, and the question then arose as to what length of notice plaintiff was entitled to. His Worship said that, in the absence of evidence as to custom or wage, tho intention of the contracting parties must be ascertained from the telegrams, coupled with the surrounding circumstances. Had not the wordsconstant job" and "constant" been used, His Worship would have considered it would have been a weekly engagement. Where there had clearly been a contract, but for no definite time, a yearly hiring might, it hud been held, be inferred. But there was no inflexible rule of law to that effect, and each particular case must depend upon its own circumstances Further, a contract of service of an indefinite time, where the relationship of the parties, that of master and servant, was, in the absence of express agreement regarding notice, in general capable of being determined by notice by either party, and the length of notice required would be determined by custom or usage, where there was one, of the particular trade or employment. In the absence of proof of such custom or usage the notice required would be a reasonable notice. In the present case His Worship was of opinion that the hiring was neither a weekly nor a yearly hiring. The conclusion he came to was. that it was a contract of service for an indefinite time, which could only be determined by reasonable notice by either party. When there was no express contract as to the length of notice to be given, three months had in some cases . been considered proper for a commercial traveller. In the case of a canvasser for advertisements one month had been held to be sufficient. Having regard to the fact, in the present case, that the parties certainly contemplated that the employment would in all probability continue for some considerable time, the plaintiff was entitled to three months' notice. The Hoskings would be bound by the agreement of the firm, and therefore liable. The question of damages was held over for further evidence, His Worship stating that if plaintiff could have remained on at £3 a week he should have done so until he got further employment, and if it could bo proved that he could have remained at that wage the damage would be reduced accordingly.