DISCHARGING A MANAGER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 14530, 18 November 1910, Page 7

DISCHARGING A MANAGER.

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

CEMENT COMPANY SUED.

The New Zealand Portland Cement Company made an experiment two years ago by importing an American student to act as manager of the works; and the experiment has terminated in a big lawsuit. The manager, a man 28 years old, named Dane Manson Greer, is suing the company for £62 10s wages and £500 damages for wrongful dismissal,, or for £750 salary and £52 house allowance, or for £375 salary and £26 house allowance. The company set up a counter claim for £3150, for alleged negligence and incompetency, but

it was abandoned on Monday, and a fresh claim set up. The case is being heard at t.he Supreme Court by His Honor Mr.

Justice Edwards, and a common, jury of

12. Mr. J. R. Reed and Mr. Steadman appear for the plaintiff, and Mr. T. Cotter and Mr. Hanna for the company. The defence filed states that tho plaintiff was incompetent and neglectful of his duties, and that the stock sheets ho sent out mis-

led the directors, and, further, that he represented that ho purchased a quantity of coal for the company, and paid £150 for it, whereas he only paid £50 for the coal.,

Mr. Reed opened the' case by describing

the manner of plaintiff's engagement. Mr. Charles Rhodes, then a director of the

company, wrote to Professor Starr Jordan, principal of the Stanford University, in 1907, asking him to recommend a man, and Greer, as a result of some cable correspondence was engaged at a salary of £600 per year,' and came to Auckland. The company had not till then been able to make a marketable cement, but under Greer's management the product improved greatly, and tho company paid its first dividend. Then, in June, 1910, the plaintiff was dismissed without warning. Letters were sent telling him that his services had been dispensed with, and also ordering him to quit at once the manager's house, or ho would be charged £5 a week rent for it. When the plaintiff put in his statement of claim for salary and damages, the defendants filed, along with their defence, a counter-claim for about £3000, part of which had been included because the cement made had been bad. On September' 28, the claim was amended to about £2000, based upon machinery unnecessarily ordered. Since then tho counter-claim had been abandoned, and another one, based on quite different circumstances, put in its place. From tho time of plaintiff's discharge, he had been, refused any opportunity of access to the works or the books to explain matters, and when the statements of claim were

filed, lengthy periods, to the extent permitted by law, were allowed to elapse, so that the case was deferred too long to come before the last sitting of the Supreme Court. The plaintiff owned a number of shares in the company, and sold them, and the company took advantage of their

power to refuse to register' the transfer. But the money had already been paid, and finding that it was a question between the brokers and the buyers of the shares, the company at once consented to tlio transfer. Then, on Saturday last, just as he was leaving to attend the Supreme Court, the plaintiff was arrested upon a warrant on a, charge of having obtained money by false pretences, and was taken before the Magistrate's Court on Wednesday. Bail was applied for, and strong opposition was raised against granting it. The plaintiff, D. M. Greer, was called, : and stated that he was 28 years of age, and hold the degrees of B.A. and chemical engineer at Stanford University, California. He was assistant-chemical engineer in the Western States Portland Cement Company, Kansas, when lie received his New Zealand appointment through Professor Starr Jordan. He was present at a meeting of directors held soon after his arrival, and his duties were summed up in the words, "make good cement." No details were given _to him. When he went to the works lie found everything in a very bad state, the machinery being old, badly designed, and badly put in. He had a great deal to do to put things straight. On June 2, 1909, he received a letter stating that his salary had been increased from £(300 to £750 a year, and that ho would receive a bonus of £25. The company declared an interim bonus of six per cent, at the same time. In April, 1910, a discrepancy between the stock returns and the docks in the Auckland Office, amounting, it was alleged, to £1500, had been found, and no explanation had been formed, though a man from the Auckland office came to the works to look through the books. Witness could not explain it, and had never been given an opportunity to compare the books to see how the discrepancy arose. In June, Mr. Holgate, one of the directors, and Mr. Kingswell, asked him to resign, but gave no reason for the request, and he declined to do so. Afterwards, Mr. Kingswell told him that he would be sorry he had refused to resign. Witness then gave evidence as to receipt of the letter of dismissal, and receipt of other letters from the directors. On Saturday last he was j arrested upon an information by Mr. Kingswell, on the charge referred to by Mr. Reed. The company had never asked him anything about the matter prior to his arrest.

In reply to questions by His Honor and counsel, the plaintiff said that at the Magistrate's Court, on Wednesday, an application for bail had been made by Mr. Steadman. It, was opposed by Chief-Detective Marsack, with whom someone he took for a lawyer's clerk frequently conversed. He had no idea why the application was opposed. His Honor remarked very strongly against the principle of arresting anyone on bail unless there was some strong reason for supposing he would refuse to answer to a summons. The plaintiff stated that he had been arrested only about half an hour before catching the train for Auckland to attend the Supreme Court. To Mr. Cotter: He understood when he was engaged that he was liable to dismissal after fair notice, which he considered was a year. It was never put to him that he was subject to a month's notice. He knew of no occasion on which the question of notice had been discussed between himself and anyone else. At a meeting of directors on the island it had been suggested that an outside expert should be engaged to make certain plans that he had not made, and he said that the company had better get rid of him first, as there was no one else in New Zealand whose plans he was prepared to accept. He considered himself responsible for the keeping of the store's accounts, but he knew nothing of any discrepancies in those accounts. A clerk had been sent by the company to the island to investigate the accounts, but had not given him an opportunity to compare the books. He had not asked for an opportunity, but had not been asked for an explanation. There was a deficiency of between £900 and £1500, and he could make no suggestion at all with regard to it. It had been discovered a month or so before he was dismissed; and he had done his best to find what it was during that time. Witness had - received money from other sources than the company while he had been manager. At 4.30 the Court adjourned till 10.30 a.m. to-day.