SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 30, 30 October 1919, Page 3

SUPREME COURT

MASTER AND SERVANT

SALARY IN LIEU OF NOTICE

His Honour Urn Chief Justice (Kir Ilobert Stout) heard tho appeal in the Supreme Court yesterday ol tho Eaylu and British Dominions Insurance Cornpan v, appellants, against a decision ot Air." \V. (J. Uiddell, S.M., in tho Magistrate'.s Court on a counter-claim. Tho respondent in the case was John Arthm Vernon Irving. 31 r. 11. I , '. Evans nppi'iired for the appellant and Mr. A. AY. Blair for the respondent. ! In the Magistrate's , Court Hie company countur-chumd that the defendant Irving Inul, it was alleged, retained the .-;um of ,<J()7 Ss. towards the expenses of his return passage- to England and three months' salary (.£75) in lieu of notice. The Magistrate decided in favour of Irving on this conn tor-claim. The uppeal was against this decision, ami tho question was whether tho respondent Irving was entitled to three months' salury in lieu of notice when his .services were germinated in -May, ]!)17, when the Christchurch office of the company, of whicli Irving was manager, was closed. Mr. Evans, in opening, stated that Irving was the manager of the ChristchurHh branch of tho company, and on January IS, 1017, lie put in his resignation by letter. To this the general manager replied jegretting that Irving had to resign, and Irving it was agreed was to have three months' salary from the end of Jiuiiniry, 1817. He was paid £lb tor the three months' salary on January 19. Irvii'g remained in the service of tho company up to tho end of April. His Honour: He was entitled to his pay for that period. . Mr. Evans: Yes. His Honour: Then he did not get the three months' salary? .Mr. Evans: "Ho got his salary." Continuing. Mr. Evans alleged that Irving lwd nibled the London office by sending a cable, message stating that ho was ref,ii<mm; liis position and returning to England unless advised otherwise. Tho London ofiice replied advising Irving to remain nt his post until the company could discuss the position with tho .general manager, who was then on his way to London. His Honour: Then the man was asked to remain, at his post, which was practically' a new ' engagement. The London office did not question Irving remaining on? ' Mr. 'Evans: living's engagement was eventually terminated. His .Honour: You keep tlie man at work until the end of April and then you turn round and say he is not entitled to three months' salary on the termination of his services. That is not Mr. Evans: Irving misled tho London office. ' ■ His Honour: There is no evidence that die had done so. He worked on for tho three months and you do not wish to pay him. Mr. Evans: Tho company was entitled to accept his services for the throe j months, during whicli period Irving had .opportunity of making other arrangeHUllonoiir: That is not three months' salary in lieu of notice. Tho main point of your appea! is that Irving misled the I'iOndon office, and on that pointthere is no evidence. Mr. Evans: Irving got his three months' salary of X 75 in January, -when he resigned. His Honour: But yon took it back from him in services which lie rendered until the end of April. Mr. Evans contended tint the company was entitled to dismiss Irving at tlip'cnd of April. Mr, Blair, in replying, said it was at the suggestion of the acting-genera! manager that Irving resigned. This officer when in Ciiristchurch told Irving that it -ffiis intended to close the Chrjstennrch office and advised Mm, to resign so that he should not l>6 stranded in Christohurch. Irving' immediately canio to ■Wellington and saw the general manager, and it was arranged that he should resign, but should hold on to his ]iosition until he could get a steamer home. On returning to Chrisfchurch Irving consulted the chief agent of tho company, ond as the. result he sent the cable messages to London. There was no deception practised on tho London office. Mr. Blair dealt fully with the facts and replied to tho law points raised by the otn-H' side.

His Honour said that there was no need to reserve decision, as he had read the evidence before hearing argument, liis Honour reviewed the case nt some length, and said the Magistrate's decision was quite right. Irving got the «C7S in lieu of notice when he resigned in Jaiunry; ho was then asked to ston on and he woAed for three months, Tbnn he was dismissed, and tho company did not wi=h to L'ive him the salary in lieu of notiw. Tlmt His Honour held wns not correct, oisd accordingly dismissed the appeal with M (is. costs.