DUNEDIN DISTRICT COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 1241, 11 September 1875, Page 5

DUNEDIN DISTRICT COURT.

Monday, 31st August. (Before His Honour Judge Bathgate and a Jury of Four.) Wm. Christie v. The National Bank of New Zealand (Limited). — This suit was brought to recover L2OO, for the plaintiff's alleged wrongful dismissal from his situation as manager of the National Bank at Oamaru. The defendants pleaded that, on or about the 21st, 22nd, and 23rd days of July, 1875, the plaintiff had improperly absented himself from the business of the defendants at the Bank of Oamaru, whereof the plaintiff was then in charge as local manager, by reason and on account of which John Bridges, the General Manager of the National Bank, thereupon legally dismissed the plaintiff from their employ, pursuant to the provisions of a certain agreement, bearing date the 18th day of June, 1875, and made between defendants on the one part, and the plaintiff on the other part. Mr Mxicassey appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Smith for the defendant. In opening the case, Mr Macassey read the agreement between Wm. Christie and the National Band of New Zealand, whereby it was mutually agreed that the plaintiff, as manager of the Bank at Oamaru, should receive L6OO per annum and allowances. In case the plaintiff, while in the service of the Bank, misconducted himself or neglected his work, or improperly absented himself from business, or failing, from ill-health or any other cause, to perform his | duties, tha agreement should be annulled. If the agreement terminated through the plaintiff's ill-health, he should be entitled to three months' salary. Either party could terminate the agreement by giving three months' notice in writing. In the event of the plaintiff misconducting himself, the Bank could instantaneously dismiss him. On the 20th July, 1875, the plaintiff forwarded his resignation to the Bank in terms of the agreement. Mr Bridges, who was unwell at the time of the plaintiff's visit to Dunedin, wrote him on the 22nd July that his resignation was not accepted, but that he was dismissed from the Bank for being absent three days from his post without leave. On the 26th July Mr Bridges requested the plaintiff to hand over management of the Bank to his successor. The writer of these letters must be a profound admirer of Prince Bismarck. Because the plaintiff thought it fit to come personally to I Dunedin to tender his resignation, that was, he considered, such an improper thing as to war- j rant his dismissal. — John Bridges, London Director of the National Bank of New Zealand, acting general manager and attorney to the Bank in the Colony, deposed that since the end of November, 1874, he had power to appoint and dismiss all officers, and his ordinary place of residence was Wellington. The plain- j tiff, who had been manager of the Bank at Oamaru.hadbeentakenoverwiththeßankof Otago. When at Oamaru, witness expressed his satisfaction with the plaintiff, whom he thought one of the most efficient officers of the Bank. Witness valued the plaintiff's salary and allowances at LBOO a year. When the plaintiff

cisaa to Dunedin, 'witness was unwell, but doing bu'sttrew in his room. Witness did not think it riglv6 for 1 managers to leave their posts without leave of abseSes, If the plaintiff had intimated his intention to" jtefo another Bank, witness would have been sorry, hW Wotdd also have facilitated his leaving. As the plaintiff had " behaved very badly" in leaving the Batik at Oamara without authority, witness thought it was time to make an example of him for the benefit of others employed at the Bank. Witness had sent circulars to the various branches of^ the Bank, intiiriating the plaintiff's dismissal. The plaintiff i'dd previously intimated that he was satisfied with Ms position at Oamaru. — Wm. Christie, the plaintiff, deposed that he had been manager of the Bank at Oamaru for four years, and -had frequently given leave of absence to the officials. He bafie^&d that Bank managers in the country were in the featrit of coming to Dunedin without permission di #ny superior body. He wrote his resignation on titer %Qsh July, and left Oaraaru on the following- day, He gave it to Mr Green, the accountant of the "Bank in Dunedin, who said that Mr Bridges wa3 unwell. Witness asked him to say that if Mr Bridges wished to see him, he could be found at the Criterion Hotel. Noinjury was caused to the Bank'st business at Oamara by witness's absence. He left everything iti working order. He entered the service of the Colonial Bank on the 2nd August, and left the National. Bank premises on the 18th August. — Alex. Barf oh, recently manager of the National Bank at Donedin, and now employed at the Colonial Bank, knew the plaintiff for two years. The plaintiff was in the habit of coming to Dunedin without permission of superior officers, and other country managers -were in the habit of doing the same. — For the 1 defence, Mr Smith called Meshrs Miller and Anderson, managers of the Banks of New South Wales and Australasia, whose evidence was to the effect that Bank managers should not leave the premises for more than a day without authority. — Henry •Green, accountant, National Bank of New Zealand, related the conversation between the plaintiff and himself, when Christie brought his resignation from Oamaru. The plaintiff then, referring to Mr Bridges, said "Served him right." — Mr Smith said it was something absurd to put the machinery of this Court in motion for this case. The plaintiff chose to think that he could leave Oamaru' at his own pleasure without obtaining leave of absence from hia superior officer. He came to Dunedin for the express purpose of engaging himself to .another Bank, at an increased salary of Ll5O a year to that he was receiving at the National Bank. The learned counsel contended that the Regulations issued for the management of the National Bank provided that each manager should obtain permission from the Inspector or Directors for leave of absence. He submitted that if the Jury found for the plaintiff they should only award a farthing damages. — Mr Macassey having replied at length, His Honour summed up very carefully,— After a brief absence, the Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, for LIOQ damages.— Mr Smith gave notice of appeal, on the ground of misdirection to the Jury, The Court adjourned till 11 a.m. to-day.