THE GOVERNMENT INSURANCE DEPARTMENT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 7001, 24 July 1884, Page 2

THE GOVERNMENT INSURANCE DEPARTMENT.

(fuoji our own coebkspondent.)

Wellington, July 23. The now celebrated action which is hung brought by Mr George Thome, jiui;, against the Government Insurance Commissioner hag been delayed by various technical difficulties, but will probably borne before'.tha Supreme Court at the iibxt civil sittings. The. plaintiffs statement of claim and the defendant's answers Have now been filed in the' Supreme Court, and give, a comprehensive view <3f tho principal matters in dispute. Should the case, comb before a jury, it promises to .be one of exceptional interest. The plaintiff in his statement of claim nest sots out the letters under which he was appointed superintendent of agents. Ihe effect of these has already been published, lne most material point seems to be contained i™, •tet,°- ,th ß Commissioner dated 4th July 18W, in which Mr Luckie refers to the then existing arrargement between Mr Thorne and the Department aa having so far proved even more successful than was anticipated • but proposed various alterations in the method of plaintiff's remuneration, &c, " for the "urpose of removing any apparent anomalies. Under the new terms Mr Thorne was to receive, subject to certain xjonditions, a commission of 5s per cent, on the sum assured under all new assurance business completed in tho ordinary branch, and two and a-half times tha amount of the first weekly premiums on all sucli business in the Industrial branch. The new arrangement was to date as from July 1. lbbd, and to extend over the period comprised in the present-quinquennium, ending the 31st December 1885, and not then to be determined without three months' notice on either side. ihe letter concludes as follows : " You will perceive that the main object of the foregoing alterations is to put you in the position of a contractor for the introduction of hew business, and that in undertaking such a position you cease to bo a salaried officer oftba Department, and you are hereby appointed an agent in terms of the departmental regulations issued under 'The Government Insurance Act 1874," rabjsct to^the conditions eet forth in this letter and my letters of the Ist lebruary and 14th November 1882 herein referred to.' The plaintiff alleges that he was wrongfully dismissed by the defendant on the April 1884; wherefore he claims to recover from the defendant the sum of £4000. i'or a further cause of action ha claims £409, balance of commission due to him, In the statement of defence the defendant admits writing the letter above referred to, but denies that.the plaintiff entered into liia service upon the terms and conditions ■of the said letter. Ha admits that plaintiff fcted^ as agent and ' servant iv the tTal Z^nf• B™-i>^«^Yfc8™-i>^«^Yfcu t Pleads tnat the plaintiff never waa appointed superintendent of agents by his E>Sn C y the Governor on the terms in the letter of J n Ji written 1J «° Vp y Bt- r°^ ly WOrdecl letters. wiitten by the Commissioner, the first sus! pending, and the.second dismissing the platat.ff, are set out in the statement of defence They refer to tha famous Mackay tele Sm" ihoOommmsioner remarks: "I regret toTy that tha explanation offered by you imminently unsatisfactory. You say that any action oi yours which may ba referred to hMhfim m the interests (to tho best of your belief of he Department. It is impossible to perceive voufnt ai llV U SS and sending by IZtol M sZ™n to the agent under your nfi W!-> nd l U any Way *M»«» .tho interests of Uio Department, or eouia be otherwise than detrimental to those interests in the eyes o all foir-ooaung men. The telegram is marked by grave misrepresentation, and by the inculcaKS^ °f tLe F^ticeof uXiMLd trickery and inveracity, which it was IZITIT l- Ur l[°? M aSenr s ,perint e udeut to guard against and prevent." The writer also 'T'bavJ l^ OntS\f remark 1. have oftener than onco cautioned you against tha want of straightforwardness Ld the of underhand action." If X Court should hold the contract to be Valid the rle.endaut pleads that plaintiff's' misconduct jostines his dismissal. His misconduct, amongst other acts upon which the defendant relies is a telegram dated November' 2 o *° Joseph Mackay, and requirMr Walker, directors and manager of the Victoria Life Association; (b) printing and publishng without the sanction of the head office a misleading advertisement referring to mutual life assurance societies; reprinting and pub ish ng, without the knowledge or authority of tho head office, a certain circular regarding tha Nationn Mutual, Life Association^ Astral! Asia; (d) obtaining and supplying counterfeit i'orf'of-fh 1' I'^ *? *?? i^uednnder the saneSnSrfv ? Australian Mutual Provident Society ; ( c ) disregard of previous intuat the question of law as to tho validity or otherwise of the contract will be argued betea alhothat of Mr Stout, who has been retained statutory officer, he is bound to treat the caso if\« w T H*\ as Pect-a8' t™ example! f he were to agree to a compromise the cheque might bo stopped by the Audit Office, or any pohcyholder might apply for an injunction against him, he bei np in fact only a trustee" or the insurers. In addition to thd question of h o V'^ dlty «f thf contract, there appears to • )e another point of law involved. The plainiti, 1 understand, sinco the action was commenced eeeniß to haya thought he may have misconceived it, aad that ho should have joined tue Urown as defendants, or sued Mr Luckia personally. The defence, I understand, offers no objection to the suit being decided as against the Crown if the Crown itsolf will consent the Oomraießioiier having no power to bind the Grown. Aa legards the action against Mr ijuckio personally, iuasmuch .-.s in the transaction no has been acting as Commissioner, no facilities will bo given, tho plaintiff being at lioerty to join him in the ordinary course of procedure, taking the responsibility as to costs of so doing.