TOLD TO RESIGN.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18703, 8 May 1924, Page 11

TOLD TO RESIGN.

SUIT AGAINST DISMISSAL. " i milking-machine; motors SOME h INTERESTING EVIDENCE. -_ - ' r „ . " S 'i ' , fBT ■ •'< TELECKA3PH.—OWK.' : COWUESPOITOSHT ] , HAMILTON. Wednesday. ; Interesting • evidence was l heard in connection with a case before . Mr, H. A. • Young, : S.M., , in . the , Hamilton Magistrate's v ■ Court ;• to-day when • . Bertrand j Hardin? 'Andrews, electrical and . mechanical engineer (Mr. Watts), sought to ' recover £180 damages from Turnbull and Jones, electrical engineers, Auckland (Mr. Johnson), for dismissal , and breach of contract—to pay for the main- : tenance of a oar. " , !. :■ ■ ' Evidence was ' given by plaintiff that he was engaged as foreman of defendants' Hamilton branch at £300 per annum for 12 months with at promise of promotion if he made good. Plaintiff entered on his duties on July 28 last year. ■ A supply of ii h.p. motors: was ordered and he found that he had only 2 h.p. ; motors in stock. - It was •' suggested to him that the name plates on the! motors should be altered from' 2 h.p. to 1£ h p.- Plaintiff expressed his strongest disapproval of such a course and .wrote • a letter of protest to the Auckland manager, Mr. Stephens. When Mr. Stephens visited ; Hamilton the question was dismissed and Mr. Stephens told him to resign. Plaintiff said, that the nameplates of 100 motors were altered. The loss to power boards would be £3 per motor. , ' ~ - • | The manager of the Electrical Construction Cbmpany ; Henry Brown, said plaintiff was now in his . company's - employ. Plaintiff was a capable riian... For 1 the J defence ; > Benjamin George Stephens, Auckland imanager ifor Turnbull and Jones, . stated that plaintiff was dismissed owing to the falling off of business. The changing of the nameplates had nothing to do with his dismissal. Witness said he had the ; manufacturers' authority for the change in the . nameplates. He had already handed into Court a letter and data, sheet from the manufacturers which made the position quite clear. The difficulty had been that the power boards did not know definitely, •what power a ' milking machine would require. At first a 3 h.p. ;. motor had! been insisted upon, while later it was found'that 2 h.p. was all that was necessary, while in some cases 1£ '.h.p. was sufficient. Evidence . was given by Thomas Steele, an electrician, who had been rin . partnership with plaintiff at one stage, witness saying that in his'opinion' Andrews was not a competent man. 'i* Recalled by the magistrate Mr. Stephens stated that the plates were changed because it was impossible to get a li h.p. motor on a 50 degree rating from their principals. The only differ•enoe- in the motors was the plate. The •firm paid the same price' for each ; motor. It did ; not gam, but in- fact was a, loser by the transaction. " The engineer to the - Central ' Power Board, 1 John !Rutherfor<t Ellis, 1 stated i that the changing of the marks on the name plates ~ from -2 h.p. to 1$ h.p. • was not very serious, for on the average only li . h.p. was required to ' drive ' the plant ' for which the motors were > installed. It would have been . better had , the defend- , : ants advised the - power board of 'the change in the name plates, but in view of the shortage of motors at the time he considered the board would -have approved of the change. Witness was prepared to have : tests taken ; to ascertain whether the motors had consumed more power than the capacity noted on the plates. ■ . , • . The magistrate reserved his. decision; :