DAMAGES CLAIMED BY EX-MANAGER.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17854, 24 May 1926, Page 5

DAMAGES CLAIMED BY EX-MANAGER.

WRONGFUL DISMISSAL ALLEGED, BUT FIRM MAKES COUNTER-CHARGE Mr Justice Adams, in the Supreme Court to-day. heard a claim for £llO damages by Richard Frederick Shaw. Christchurch, agent, against’ ‘the Electric Products and Gramophones Company, whose headquarters are in Auckland, on account of alleged wrongful dismissal. Shaw set out that, on October 1 last, be was employed as Christchurch manager of the company’s branch for three months, the company then to decide if he should be engaged for a further term. The salary was to be £7 a week and a commission of 1 per cent on the sales of the branch. On October 11* the company, he claimed, wrongfully determined his employment 'without notice, and dismissed him. lie also claimed £94 10s Id, balance owing to him. The defence was that Shaw sold a gramophone to Mrs Markham, Lyttelton. and received 10s by way of a deposit and hire purchase agreement from Mrs Markhan, who afterwards returned the document and that Shaw wrongfully tore it up and misappropriated the 10s. Jt was further alleged that Shaw misappropriated 16s, proceeds of the sale of gramophone jeases, and wrongfully caused the date of a hire purchase agreement to be altered enabling him to obtain a commission. Another allegation was that Shaw and

Mrs Shaw wrongfully sold their own gramophone records at the shop and retained the profits. In a counter-claim, the company asked that Shaw should be ordered to refund £1 6s. and it claimed £SO damages on account of disorganisation of business caused by Shaw's breach of agreement. Mr Hunter appeared for Shaw and Mr Sim for the company. Counsel agreed that the claim for £94 10s Id should be taken before the Registrar. Mr Iluntcr said that Shaw established in Auckland a business entitled Klectro-Medica! Supplies. lie took into partnership Mr J. C. Young, now general manager of the Electric Products and Gramophone Company. The. business of the Klectro-Medica i Supplies was sold to Electric Products, Ltd., which, in turn, was sold to the Electric Products and Gramophones Company, defendant in the present action. On October 19. Mr Young, to Shaw’s astonishment, made charge of dishonesty against him. Mrs Markham went to the shop on July 27. 1 when Shaw was agent, not manager, and arranged to purchase a gramophone. He then was liable for all the expenses of the branch. She should have paid 35s deposit, but paid onlv 10s. agreeing to pay the balance of the deposit the same afternoon. She did not keep her promise. Shawsent. a man to bring the gramophone back, incurring expense. lie was out j . f pocket 7s 6d and lost a man’s work for half a day. To reimburse himself. he tore up the agreement and put the 10s hi his pocket. A few days later, he sold the same gramophone to another person, so that the companylost nothing. As to the charge of misappropriating 16s, Shaw was agent then also. The cases were sold by him for 16s. It was the custom in the business not to charge an agent for gramophone cases. The companyhad never claimed for cases before. As to the charge that Shaw and Mrs Shaw had wrongfully sold their own records at the shop and had retained the profits. Mrs Shaw had a sub-agency from the company. She took some of her records to the shop, where they* were handed to a customer, who paid 13s 6d, Shaw handing the sum to Mrs Shaw. The lady- book-keeper made a mistake in the date of a sale, and Shaw never claimed for commission on that sale. He was dismissed with ignominy, Mr Young ordering him out of the shop and telling him not to pet foot in it again. lie now' asked for damages, and that his good name should lie restored. Plaintiff said that he had earned £lO a week salary and commission. lie had complained to his book-keeper in regard to her work. To Mr Sim: Since dismissal, he had sought employ-ment, but was unsuccess-

ful, as he lacked a reference. He had intended to bring an action for slander. lie had done a little poultry farming at Rangiora, having had about nfty fowls. The records sold at the shop were Mrs Shaw's. He did not keep the proceeds of any other records sold jn the shop.

To his Honor: He did not enter the payments he had received because he regarded them as his, not the com- * Beryl Chaney said that she, as salewoman, had sold in the shop records that did not belong to the company. As instructed, she handed the proceeds to Mr Shaw She told Mr Young that she had never found Mr Shaw to be

dishonest. Vera Shaw, plaintiffs wife, said tjjat

customers of hers asked, at her own shop, for certain records, and she told them that the records would be available at the company’s shop In \uckf/r eases' COmpany did not charge her 'Proceeding.)