DISLOYALTY PROVED

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 750, 24 August 1929, Page 9

DISLOYALTY PROVED

♦ HAT-DESIGNER’S CLAIM FAILS WORKED FOR RIVAL FIRM Holding that Harry Dawson, hatdesigner and cutter, employed by New Zealand Millinery Supplies had been guilty of misconduct by performing work for a rival firm, the Northern Hat Factory, Mr. Justice Herdman dismissed a claim by Dawson for wrongful dismissal, in the Supreme Court late yesterday afternoon. Dawson, for whom Mr. Singer appeared, was engaged under a two-year contract, which did not expire until August 27, 1929, and he therefore claimed from Mrs. Alice Eeles, of New Zealand Millinery Supplies, and Harry Bertram Leaper, manufacturer, represented by Mr. Northcroft and Mr. Burt. £228, on the ground that he had been wrongfully dismissed on April 23. The allegation was that Dawson’s dismissal followed upon his disclosure to the Customs Department that Leaper, a departmental officer, was engaged in New Zealand Millinery Supplies. The defence relied upon an accusation that Dawson had been performing work for a rival firm, in contravention to the terms of his agreement. Evidence was given by Frederick Eeles, Mary Ellen Kirk and Charles Frederick Wood, that from a verandah they had watched Dawson cutting hats on the Northern Hat Company’s premises the night before his dismissal. In rebuttal, James Lamont, proprietor of the Northern Hat Factory, stated that Dawson had never done anything that would harm New Zealand Millinery Supplies. He refuted the accusation that Dawson was cutting hats for him on April 22. James Mclntosh, Collector of Customs, stated he had received a message to telephone Dawson on the night of April 22. He said, under crossexamination, that it would only be possible for a person to take hats out of a case on the wharf, copy and return them, with the consent of the importer or the manufacturer’s agent. After the case was opened for inspection, he said, it was nailed down by the manufacturer’s agent before leaving. His Honour held that Dawson had been performing work for the Northern Hat Factory and, therefore, dismissal for misconduct was justified. Judgment was entered for defendants with costs.