DAMAGES CLAIMED

Southland Times, Issue 21264, 10 December 1930, Page 7

DAMAGES CLAIMED

ALLEGED WRONGFUL DISMISSAL. CASE AGAINST RADIO RECORD. (Per United Press Association.) Wellington, December 9. A case is proceeding in the Supreme Court to-day in which Mrs Nellie Digby Smith is claiming £2OO from the Radio Publishing Company for an alleged breach of contract and wrongful dismissal. The plaintiff, according to her claim, was given charge of the Electrical Home Section of the Radio Record for no fewer than two years at £6 6/- a week from December, 1929. The defence was that the plaintiff was also to contribute to the Dairy Exporter. It denied that there was an engagement for no fewer than two years and stated that the engagement was terminated on account of a breach by the plaintiff of the terms of her contract, in that she did not, as required, supply material to fill six or eight pages a week; that she was unusually late in supplying the material; that the quality was poor and not orginial and that she failed to keep in touch with the electrical trade and as a result of her neglect or inability the defendant had lost advertising matter and the section of the paper placed in charge of the plaintiff had suffered and deteriorated so as to lower the general standard of the newspaper.

The plaintiff said that she was a qualified accountant. She came to New Zealand three years ago and obtained aposition with the Pahiatua Power Board, having had considerable experience in England with domestic electric equipment. When she interviewed the managing editor of the Radio Record, Mr Heighway, he told her that it had a circulation of 14,000 and referred to a proposed electrical drive, outlining the work he desired the plaintiff to take up and mentioning articles on. electrical matters and books and music occasionally.

His Honour: Were you to be expert on books and music as well ?

Plaintiff: Not necessarily expert but I said that I thought I could take caro of that column for him.

The plaintiff, speaking of later developments, said that she thought Heighway was bothered about the whole thing and was at the mercy of the last person he had been consulting on the subject. Matters came to a head when she asked if her services had been unsatisfactory. He said: “That is what I am going to maintain unless you acce-t the offer we shall make to you, which I think is a perfectly fair one.” The offer was four weeks’ pay. Heighway said: “You can have time to look for work if you accept. We will give you all the help we can and you can put out any story you like.” Witness said: “The truth is good enough for me.” Later in evidence ,the plaintiff quoted Heighway as saying: “You told me you had only one child and I hear you have three.” (Laughter.) The plaintiff said that she had told him that she had never discussed her children with him.

Counsel for the defendant company asked for a non-suit on the grounds of the agreement being over 12 months. It should have been in writing and Ihe date of the commencement should be mentioned.

His Honour reserved judgment on the point.

Counsel contended that the plaintiff being found incompetent, it entitled notice. Heighway, in giving evidence, said that he had advertised for a competent journalist with initiative, enterprise and enthusiasm. Mrs Smith impressed him on account of her association with the electrical trade and experience on magazines. She was exactly what he required. She was to keep in touch with the electrical trade, write a star feature about the page and conduct the cooking page and household hints. He was speedily disappointed with her and the page degenerated. He had to take steps to restore it.

The case was adjourned till to-morrow.