NO NEED TO HIT BACK

Taranaki Daily News, 12 April 1935, Page 5

NO NEED TO HIT BACK

BOOT COMPANY LOSES ACTION.

DISCHARGED EMPLOYEE’S CLAIM.

By Telegraph--Press Association. Invercargill, Last Night.

Holding that the words “weed out” were prejudicial to the persons to whom they related, and saying that there was not the need for a firm to hit back harshly at somebody who had been in its employ, bitt stating that the plaintiff was only one of a number, Mr. E. C. Lewey, S.M., to-day gave judgment for plaintiff far £5O, with costs £8 Is, in an action for libel in which Benjamin Thomas Eastlake, a boot salesman, claimed to recover £3OO as damages from John Kingsland and Co., boot importers. The action arose out of an advertisement in the Southland Daily News which contained the following words: "We have weeded out our staff and trained our assistants in the scientific fitting of footwear, and have now a service which is second to none.in the Dominion and is yours for the asking at no extra cost to you.”

Eastlake in his statement of claim alleged that the company meant thereby that he had been discharged from the staff of the company as being an inferior salesman, a useless employee, and a noxious person. He contended that the publication was false and malicious. After giving judgment His Worship fixed security for appeal at £2l on the amount and costs being paid into Court.