FOR £3000 DAMAGES.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1143, 2 June 1911, Page 2

FOR £3000 DAMAGES.

CIVIL SERVANT'S SUIT, PLAINTIFF LOSES HIS CASE, EVIDENCE AND FINDING. Yesterday, at the Supremo Court, his Honour Mr. Justice Sim and a jury of twelve, continued the hearing of a claim against the Government for .£3OOO damages made by Arthur Broad Reynolds, late of the Customs Department, lor alleged wrongful dismissal. Mr. R. B. Williams, with him Mr. G. A. Fell, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Salniond, Solicitor General, for the Crown. Mr. Ssilmond submitted that there was no case to go to the jury, and applied for a nonsuit. No evidence had teen adduced, nor anything to show a cause of action. It was true that, under the Civil Service Act. an inquiry, by a board was. a condition precedent to his dismissal forjiiiscouduct, and it was true that, if Tie nail been dismissed without proper inquiry, ho was entitled to an action for damages—possibly nominal damages—but. at any rate, ho had a technical cause of action. But, iu order to succeed, plainfill' must show that no inquiry had taken l>?acc, or that the inquiry which did take pjaco.was a mere nullity—nullified by ueiects of procedure, which deprived it of any legal etl'ect. There was an inquiry in this case. Therefore, ;t was lor plaintitf to show that the inquiry was vitiated by improper conduct oa the part of the Board of Inquiry, so that the inquiry did •not amount in law to a valid inquiry or ! finding; and, therefore, that plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed with an inquiry. Ifis Honour: He claims that he was refused an opportunity o£ beiug heard. Mr. Salmouil replied that that was the substantial ground. He submitted tnat flitre was no evidence to go to a jury as to impropriety of conduct on the part uf the board, ft was perfectly recognised as a matter of law that the appearance ot counsel was not a matter of right; that was absolutely at the discretion of Inn board, so also was the qnciuun ot adjournment. To succeed in those re-, spects, plaintiff must; show that the board acted maliciously, corruptly, ana in bad faith.

His Honour said the matter of adjournment, was entirely at the discretion of the tribunal.

Hγ. Salmoud remarked that that was so. ?•,<: such evidence, such as he had siißsestcil, was given. His Honour pointed out that the jury jras present, and it would be more satisiaetory that they should hear nil ou". tioiis of fact. He would reserve the consideration of the question of a nonsuit until a later stag*. Mr. Salmoiul said tliat the first question which the jury had to consider was , whether plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed from the Customs Department, and (hat involved the question whether an honest and proper inquiry was held by ..hi' board. This Civil Kervico Act provided that a man could not be dismissed for misconduct until a board reported upon his case. The question for Mα jury Io consider was whether Reynolds had a real opportunity of having the. 'harps made against him investiRated; whether the Commissioners acted in Rood faith, or whether they acted oppressively, ma.liciously, and in bad faith. Under the Civil hVmee Act, R.evnokts 7 s " lt '« ft l to-£670 . :D inpen; a ti UIl f6> loss of office feo that, ,f he were wrongfully removed, he had suffered a. loss of .£670 Si" 1 . ™-* entitled to I hat damage. But '...at rigit to damages wr.s conditional on iis frood behaviour. He was not entitled lo it if he misbehaved himself, nnd was dismiss.,!. If ho was guilty of the )}ZTI "\ a,h ,. a him, then he was liable to lw dismissed at any time, without compensation. ] t was for the jury to consider whether he had forfeited the oh ■ ITT ,^ b " v <l™nkeni,4 o? otiie misconduct. Counsel added Hint he .ought that ho would bo able to »„.! 1.1 tho .jury that plaintiff had honelc«lv forfeited w rijrht to remncnUoWt, treated. ,d, hatl been lib * ral 'y Evidence as to Habits. t!vo ro occa"ons. a<l - SCOU Be3 ' nolds drunk ° n David Fletcher, Customs locker, stated CnU I 0 • Vas EfalioM <l in Wellington' a, of ™o rS n eSSCnger ', Ul tl,c ' ■ m .- On several occasions he had , " , CMtOMS OffiM, ' a,SO ton!s n ,TIV el,ard , Col,ec,or of C,,s " " Im-ercai-Ril deposed that lie was formerly Acting-Collector at Auckland Ihnt was in IOOS-ft. Reynolds wa Hen k ationod at. Auckland. "He remembered the secretary holding an inquiry. Amelia I.ose Spence, wife of" the previous witness, deposed that, on Patunlav, uirraees'af'Elle 0 Hey,wlds k Henry Xorrnnn Spenct aI m> slated that J^t'S , R ° ynoldsat *e races on A\ illiam Rose, landing surveyor Customs Department, Wellington, iaid that in June, 150!), Reynolds had stated that he was going off to Auckland, and was not coming back again.. He said that i.e. had seen the Minister, and it was "all rijThf. To Mr. Williams: Reynolds did hi? work satisfactorily, and also left it in a satisfactory condition. This clowd the case for the Crown In lebnttnl of some of the evidence (rivwi foi the Crown, Mr. Williams called evidence. James A. Campbell, landing waiter of the Customs Department, said that he had seen Reynolds frequently prior to his leaving for Auckland. lie had never Keen Reynolds under the influence of liquor. Francis \V. D. Aitchcffm, landing waiter. Wellington, deposed that hs krA- Royno.ds well, and had never se-on nim iiitoxiealed. Frederick N. Crombie, landing waiter, cave similar -testimony. no took over Rpynolds's work, and found it was in gold order. James jr. O'Reilly, A. Duncan, and A. Paul, landing waiters,"testified that, lhay had never seen Reynolds under the influence nf liquor. Counsel then addressed (he jury, and his Honour reviewed the evidence. The Issues and Answers. The following were the issues submitted to the jury and the answers given :— 1. Did the Hoard of Inquiry act honestly and in Rood faith in refusing to allow counsel to appear?—" Yes." 2. Did the board act honestly and in good faith in proceeding with the inquiry instead of adjourning?—" Yes." 3. Was Reynolds unable from ill-henlth to appear at the inquiry?—"ls'o." ■J. Did Reynolds receive reasonably sufficient notico of the charges against him: In) As to the charge of insobriety? (b) As lo the charge of absence without leave? (c) As to the charge of disobedience' of orders?—" Yes." 5. Did he or his counsel at, or at. any time before, the inquiry, object lo the sufficiency of such nolicc of the charges?—"Xo." R. Did Reynolds receive reasonably sufficient nrtice of (he dale of the inquiry?—" Yes." 7. Did he r>v his counsel at, or nt any time before, the inquiry object to (he sufficiency of such notice of tho date of the inquiry?—" No." S. Was Ihe charge of insobriety (rue.?— "Yes." 9. Was the charge of absence without leave true?—" Yes." ID. Was Reynolds offered a new inquiry before his dismissal?—" Yes." 11. Did ho refuse (he olfor rm (he ground thai he could not with safely enlriisi himself (0 any inquiry instituted bv Ihe Department of Customs. 1, —"Yes. 12. Assuming Reynolds to have been unlawfully dismissed, what damages is he entitled lor—"The jury recommend that the salary duo as between the date of tho suspension and final dismissal be paid. Judgment was entered for the Crown, with costs according to scale. Leave was reserved for 28 days for petitioner to move to set a.side the judgment, execution to bo "tared for that period.