DAMAGES CLAIMED

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 139, 10 December 1930, Page 12

DAMAGES CLAIMED

RADIO RECORD CASE

ALLEGED WRONGFUL DISMISSAL

Further evidence1-was called in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon and to-day in the case in which Mrs. Nellie Digby Smith claimed £200 damages for wrongful dismissal from the Eadio Publishing Company of New Zealand. His Honour Mr. Justice Blair presided. Mr. C. G. White appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. C. A. L. Treadwell, with him Mr. H. James, appeared for the defendant. After the plaintiff had finished her evidence Mr. Trcadwell asked that she bo non-suited. His Honour reserved his decision on the point. Evidence was given on behalf or the defence by Arthur James Heighway, managing editor of tho "Eadio Beeord," who outlined his reasons for starting an electrical section in the paper. He said that he told the plaintiff that the whole success of tho venture would depend on her initiative, personality, and skill. He outlined specifically what would be expected of her. She would be expected to keep in the closest touch with the wholesale aud retail branches of the trade, and with the Public Works Department. In addition to that "contact" work she Ivould be required to write every week a star feature of about a page in size. She would havo to conduct a cookery page, and another feature would bo household hints. The witness said that he was speedily disappointed with her work. There was generally lacking a deficiency of matter, and Mrs. Smith was not very keen on her work. The arrangement was that the job should be a full-time one. The articles contributed by the plaintiff were not as a rule suitable, nor of the nature expected. There was' a lack of original matter, and the deficiency had to be made up from other sources. Many of the articles appearing on the editorial page were unsuitable for that page. Finding that the plaintiff was not fitted for the position, he dispensed with her services, and arranged for someone else to do the work. In his judgment, the plaintiff had not had the necessary practical experience in journalism. Cross-examined by Mr. White as to the alleged "model snappy conduct" of the editorial page since the plaintiff left, tho witness asserted that it was model under the changed circumstances; the plaintiff had lost the opportunity of winning the confidence of the readers. Up till Mrs. Digby Smith left the witness had supplied more of the articles headed "What Women Think" than tho plaintiff did. His Honour, referring to1 tlic witness's adverse comments on the editorial page as conducted by Mrs. Digby Smith, remarked that the plaintiff only claimed to have had experience as a contributing journalist. Counsel said that the witness had his own editorial page; yet he evidently wanted a second editorial page in the women's section of tho paper. (Proceeding.)