FOR £3000 DAMAGES.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1142, 1 June 1911, Page 2

FOR £3000 DAMAGES.

CIVIL SERVANT'S CASE. WHAT REASON FOR DISMISSAL? INTERESTING EVIDENCE. yesterday Tiis Honour Mr. Justice Rim and a jury of twelve heard an nclion brought by Arthur Broad Reynolds, late landing waiter, Auckland, lor ,£3OOO damages against the Crown for alleged wrongful dismissal. The case was before the Supreme Court last year, and now came up again as a petition of right, under the Crown Suits Act, against the King. On the case being called, his Honour stated (hat he had looked over the papers, and it seemed to him to resolve itself into a question of law. The only Question 0 f fact boaring on the question of law was whether the Government offered plaintiff a second commission. Mr. Blair remarked that there was tho question of damages. His Honour asked if the question of law should not bo settled first. Mr. Blair replied that at the present juncture suck a course would be inconvenient. His Honour: The main point is: Is there a cause of action against tho Crown by a civil servant for dismissal? Mr. Blair answered that he did not think that that was the most difficult question of law in the matter. The Grounds for Action, Petitioner, in his statement, set forth that ho had been in the public service for some twenty-five years, and at the time of his dismissal (December 14, 1909) was in receipt of a salary of ,£IOO per annum. Owing to serious illness, he had left Wellington on June 1, 1909, and had gone to Auckland under medical advice. On June IG, he v;as suspended, and a letter was sent to him from the Collector of Customs, 'Wellington, charging him with being absent without leave, mid with insobriety and disobedience of orders. That letter referred to another Departmental letter, no copy of which, he stated, had been supplied to him. He was, therefore, in complete ignorance cf the specific charges made against him. A board of inquiry, consisting of Messrs. J. A. Hutton and W. Bowles, was set up to report on the case. Tho board met in Wellington in July, 1909. Petitioner alleged that, at that time, he was in ill-health, and was under medical treatment. He arrived in Wellington on July 12, but was unfit to appear before the board, and therefore returned to Auckland. He authorised Mr. V. K. Meredith, solicitor, to appear for him before the board, but tho board declined to allow Mr. Meredith to attend, and also refused to adjourn the case. In consequence of the board's report, it was alleged that petitioner had been dismissed ■ from the nublic service "ii l>" n mb— '4. 1909. Petitioner urged that the sitting of the board was illegal, anu was iu,i consonant with natural justice. In consequence of his dismissal, his health had suffered, and ho had also lost his claim to compensation. Tor the defence it was first denied that the inquiry was void. It was also contended that petitioner was guilty of the charges made against him, that being the cause of his dismissal from the service. As he had complained that he had not had a sufficient inquiry, the Government had offered him a new inquiry, which offer, however, he had refused. Mr. R. B. Williams and Mr. G. A. Fell appeared for petitioner, and Mr. Salmond, Solicitor-General, for tho Crown. Mr. Williams outlined petitioner's cs.se as set out in the petitvn. . In re Petitioner's Health. V. R. 8. Meredith, solicitor (called as a .witness) deposed tnat, some eight years ago he was in the. Customs Department and know petitioner well. Petitioner was then ill and suffered from haemorrhage of tho brain, caused by a fall tram a bicycle. In July, 1909, ho saw petitioner again, .j Petitioner .then stated that he had to 'appeal'. bit ore a Board- of Inquiry, and was not well enough to do so, and ho instructed witness to appear before tho board for him, and then left for Auckland by train. Witness attended tho inquiry, and informed the hoard that lleynolds was too ill to appear, and handed in a medical certificate irom Dr. M'Loan. That certificate was to tho effect that Reynolds suffered from fits, probably due to tho bicycle accident, and that he was not fit to stand any mental strain. Tho board intimated that they would not hear witness as counsel. Witness asked how- about witnesses in Reynold's defence, and the board replied that that was Reynolds's business. Proceedings were then taken by Mr. Ostler and witness, with tho view of having Reynolds retained in the service. A letter was sent on August 23, 1909, by the legal firm of Williams and Meredith to the -Minister for Customs asking that Reynolds be reinstated. On August 27 a second letter was sent to the Minister drawing attention to tho fact that Reynolds had been ill for some time past, and was sti.ll ill. The Minister replied that a second inquiry would be granted on certain conditions set forth in the communication. Reynolds informed tho Government that ho could not accept a second inquiry on tho conditions laid down. After further communicatious, the Government agreed to grant a second inquiry on condition that it was held without delay and that Reynolds should attend personally. Subsequently, in consequence of the .Minister's evident hostility to Reynolds (as shown in the course of an interview between petitioner's counsel and tho Minister), a. letter was sent to the Government intimating that counsel was of opiuion, and had so advised Reynolds,' that he conld not with safety submit himself to any inquiry that the Department might set up. Reynolds subsequently received nolice of his dismissal lrom the public service. To Mr. Salmond: Witness obtained the certificate from Dr. M'Lcan, on the morning of the inquiry, in July. In his ccrvilicate JJr. ML-ean stated that ho had attended Reynolds in the previous May. Ho did not know whether Dr. M'Lcan saw petitioner between May and July. Hoy/ Did the Minister Treat the Matter? Henry H. Ostler, Crown Prosecutor, Wellington, deposed that he first advised Reynolds in June, 1909. That was before he (Mr. Ostler) had been appointed to a position in tho public service. He took legal action with the view of endeavouring to get tho decision to dismiss Reynolds quashed or reversed. Those proceedings were unsuccessful. Witness related what occurred at the interview with the Minister (Hon. Mr. Fowlds). At that interview, Mr. Fowlds said "it was absolutely useless to discuss tho matter—that the man must go anyhow." I In view of the Minister's statement, he advised Reynolds to refuse any form of inquiry. . . Mr. Blair: You advised him to decline any inquiry? , Witness: Yes, as a result of that interview with the Minister-that is, unless the inquiry was held by a Supreme Court Judge. The Petitioner's Own Version. Arthur Broad Reynolds, petitioner, deposed that he joined the Civil Service in November, ISS3, and continued in tho service for nearly twenty-six years. Prior to his dismissal, he had been stationed in Wellington. He suffered from epileptic fits, as a result, he thought, of a bicycle accident. The fits first occurred on tho day after tho bicycle accident, and they had occurred at intervals ever since. In consequence of sickness, he went to Auckland in July, 1909. He reported himself to his superior officer (Mr. Rose) beforo leaving for Auckland, and informed Mr. Rose that he had l>eon given leave of absence by tho Premier. He went to Auckland because his family was there, and ho was ill for several days whilst ho was in Auckland. He received a letter, dated June 16, from the Collector of Customs, suspending him from duty. In that letter there was reference to a previous letter containing certain charges against witness. He never received that letter, and did not know what the charges were which were made against him. Ho received a letter dated July 8, intimating that a board of inquiry had been set up to bear and report upon charges which had been made against him of l>eing absent without leave, insobriety, and disobedience of orders. He arrived in Wellington in responso to that letter, and the inquiry was fixed for July It. He was ill on the 13th, and instructed Mr. Meredith to represent him. He returned to Auckland immediately after instructing Mr. Meredith, and, on his

return fo Auckland, he had to call in medical advice. He received notice of dismissal on December 10, 1909. His salary at the time of his dismissal was -C3OO per annum, in addition to which ho received about .£3O a year for overtime. On his retirement at the age of 57 ho would have been entitled to J2OO a year for the rest of his life,. To Mr. Salmond: The charges mndo against him were insobriety, absence without leave, and disobedience of orders. In January, 1909, an inquiry was held at Auckland by the Secretary for Customs. Tho charges at that inquiry were that he had been under the influence of liquor on one or two occasions. After that inquiry he was removed to Wellington, at a reduced snlarv, and with a. reduced status. Ho did not admit the charges then made against him. He signed the document produced, dated January 2G, 1909. In that letter, addressed to tho Secretary for Customs, witness admitted that ho had been under the influence of liquor on the dates mentioned in (ho charges, hut urged (hat the smallest quantity of alcohol affected him since hia bicycle accident. "Did You Keep that Pledge?" Mr. Fell asked whether this was rclev vant to tho present case. Mr. Salmond thought that this showed that cause for dismissal did exist. Tho most that Reynolds could claim was as to the procedure of his dismissal. His Honour: Were thev not condoned subject to his good behaviour? Mr. Salmond: Yes, that he would nl> slain; and within a month afterward his conduct was such that another in. quiry was held. In reply to Mr. Salmond, witness nutted that he had signed a promiso dated February 3, 1909, at Auckland, to abstain from taking alcoholic liquor. Ho thought that if ho signed that ho would not ho removed from Auckland. Did you keep that pledge ?—"Yes, for some time." How long did you keep that pledge— a day?—" Yes." i A week?—l suppose so. ) Are you prepared to swear that yott were not drinking the day you signed it?—"l do not remember. I do not think I did. Mr. Glnsgow, tho secretary, promised that he would not send m« from Auckland if I took the pledge. But he sent me away from Auckland, and I therefore took no further notice of tho pledge." Mr. Fell said that petitioner's cause of action was that he was dismissed without having a proper inquiry, which was a condition precedent to dismissal. If they proved that there was not. a proper inquiry—whether the charges were true or not, did not affect petitioner's cause of action; it only went to the question of tho amount of damages. Ho admitted that cross-examination as to conduct within a reasonable period should bo allowed, because it might affect tho measure of damages. Petitioner had been disrated for one offence, and should not be punished twice for the same offence. His Honour held that the cross-examin-ation was admissible as it might affect the question of the damages. Continuing in reply to Mr, Salmond witness said that he was sober all tho time that he was in Wellington. Mr. Salmond: Did you obtain leave from the Prime Minister?—" Yes, that leave was obtained by my wife. Tho Prime Minister told my wife that 1 conld go away for a few weeks." Was the Prime Minister the Minister for Customs?—" No." You say that he gave you leave without your having obtained leave from your superior officer?—" Yes." ■ That, is what your wife told you?— "Yes." And you believed it —"Yes." In reply lo further questions, witness said that he suffered irom rheumatism, rheumatic fever, and from epileptic fits.

lie left Wellington on June 2 solely because of illness. He might have attended the races at .Auckland on Saturday, June 5, but that meant simply spending a day in the country. He gave Dr. Jl'Lean's certificate of May 28 to his (witness's) wife, and she must have handed it to the Prime Minister, or sent it to tho Department. Re-examined by Mr. Fell: Before leaving Wellington.on June Ihe had informed Mr. Rose,' his superior officer, that ho was going nway. Mr. Rose was the proper officer to report to. Ho denied the charges of drunkenness in Wellington. Ho had . been attended by four doctors in Auckland. Dr. Marsack, of Auckland, had recommended that ho should bo given sis months' leave of absence by the Department. That was in January, 1509. The Department did not grant tho leave. Dr. Aickcn, of Auckland, had' certified that he was not in a fit state to make the journey from Auckland to Wellington to attend' tho inquiry. -< In replv to Mr. Williams, Mr. Meredith, recalled, said that, at the inquiry, Mr. Bould asked witness if Reynolds was sober when ho (witness) saw him, and he (witness) had replied that he was perfectly sober. Further hearing of the case was adjourned till this morning.