SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2623, 19 November 1915, Page 9

SUPREME COURT

CIVIL SESSIONS

ALLEGED WRONGFUL DISMISSAL

In the Supreme Court yesterday, before His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and a common jury of four, the hearing was commenced of tile civil action in which Harry Fieldhouse, clerk, of Wellington, was the plaintiff, and S. Oppenlieimer and Co., wholesale dealers, in butchers' supplies, of London and New York, wero the defendants. Mr. E. .G. Jollicoe appoared lor the plairitiff, while Mr. A. Gray, K.C., with him Mr. D. S. Smith, appeared for the defendants. In tlio statement of claim, it was set out that, by contract dated June 21, 1912, Field3iou.se was employed by the defendant company as clerk at a remuneration of £10 per week for four .years, from November 1, 1912, one of the conditions being that, if the employment were determined by a month's notice, the defendant company should pay to Fieldhouse the passage money for himself and his wife from Wellington to London. Fieldhouse now said that on June 8, 1915, he was dismissed by the defendant company without notice and without payment of the passage money or any part of it. He there-, fore claimed £86 passage money, £4 6s. 9d. for Work done, and £100 for damages.

The defence was a denial of wrongful dismissal. Defendant company- said that Fieldhouse had rightly been dismissed for insubordination and insolence to the Wellington representative of the firm, to whom ho had written an insulting letter, which ho persisted in and refused to withdraw. The letter complained of was written in reply to a letter from Max Eichelbaum (Wellington representative), stating Iris (Fieldhouse's engagement would terminate on June 30, and that lie would receive pay to that date together with £50 towards his expenses in tlie event of his returning to England. Fieldhouso's letter stated, inter alia: "You have frequently shown by word and deed that you begrudge me the salary the firm paid roe, but surely tho £1700 you received from the firm last year, added to tho £400 to your son, ought to satisfy you without sacrificing me for the purpose of getting a few pounds moro into your son's pocket. . . . Owing to vour affliction I have tolerated your insults for some timo past, but after your cowardly attack on me, warning mo that you will show me ]io' consideration a week after you havo stabbed me in tho back. 1 intend to make your treachery widely known to tho business men, who are acquainted with both of us. I am warning you beforehand,'and not using your German method of injuring a man first and warning him afterwards. Your much vaunted loyalty to tho British Crown is surely out of place when you are at the same time striving your utmost \to crush a British subject." Tliero .was also p. reference to "false and malicious cables."

At tho close of the plaintiff's case, Mr. Gray moved for a nonsuit oil the ground that tho letter written by tho plaintiff was grossly insulting and made tho relations between manager and employee incompatible. Therefore the dismissal was justified and there was nothing to submit to a jury.

After hearing argument on the point, His Honour liold tliat lis. was. bound' by his ruling in Corry v. Ckniston. in 1904, and could not do otherwise than grant tlic non-suit asked for. The letter complained of was. he- remarked, insulting throughout and, after it had been sent, it was impossible that the relations in which the parties then stood could have been continued. It seemed to His Honour that the only possible claim plaintiff could have would have been capable of settlement in the Magistrate's Court. The non-suit was granted with costs oil the \lowest scale, and 3 guineas for second counsel.

THE CRIMINAL SESSIONS

The criminal sessions of the Supreme Court wero concluded beforo His Honour Mr. Justice Chapman yesterday, when Robert Stockbridge was found guilty on six charges of common theft. These charges involved the loss of property ■ (mainly carpentering tools) from two different owners at Hataitai, and four different owners at Miramar. The total value of the property covered m the charges was £12 2s. !)d. The evi.denco for tile prosecution was to the effect that most of tho missing articles had been recovered at the residence of the accused, one plane being in his. kit at the building where he was lately employed.

When i-lio jury's verdict was announced. Mr. V. E. Meredith, of tho Crown Law Office, informed the Court that Slockbridge had a formidable record of previous convictions. On Tuesday last h» was rentenced to four years' imprisonment for > burglary,

His Honour imposed an additional sentence of six • months' imprisonment witli hard labour.