£2000 CLAIM

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 89, 12 October 1934, Page 10

£2000 CLAIM

ELECTROTYPER'S JOB

"PERMANENT" ENGAGEMENT

TEEMS OF A CONTRACT

The hearing was continued before Mr. Justice Eeed in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon and today of the action in which David Simpson, an eleetrotyper, alleges breach of contract against the firm of Vickery and Inkersell, Ltd., process engravers, clectrotypers, and stereotypers, of Wellington, and claims £2000 damages from them.

The plaintiff left the Government Printing Office in 1929 after securing an offer in writing of a permanent job, and was dismissed by the defendants on June 22 last. It is contended by the defendant company in its statement of defence that there had been no permanent engagement but that it was for termination on one week's notice from either side. Mr. C. Evans-Scott appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.'D. W. Virtue and Mr. J. E. E. Bennett for the defendant company. I'red Thornley, stereotyper of the Government Printing Office, said that the plaintiff did all the electrotyping work up till the time he left. The plaintiff and the overseer of the printing office had taught witness his work. Before Simpson left witness was approached by the defendant firm but had not thought himself competent to install the machinery that would be necessary. He referred the firm to the plaintiff. David Eankin, stereotyper, who became unemployed since the "New Zealand Times" ceased publication, gavo evidence as to the difficulty of obtaining employment. Witness was on relief work at. present. NONSUIT SOUGHT. Application for a nonsuit of the plaintiff was made by Mr. Virtue at the conclusion of the first part of tho plaintiff's case, on the ground that the contract as set up by the plaintiff and proved was limited to the letter received by the plaintiff, and that the letter. implied nothing more nor less" than a weekly hiring which was properly terminated by giving a week's wages in lieu of a week's notice. Where an agreement was reduced to writing, it must stand or fall by the document, and there were authorities for giving the word "permanent" its ordinary meaning. , In the letter, the word permanent really had no significance. The word permanent added nothing to the plaintiff's contract, which was evidenced by a very barexmemorandum. Counsel quoted what he submitted was an authority against acceptance of oral evidence to explain or vary the contract in writing. That supported counsel's objection to the admission of'the evidence of the plaintiff that t;he defendant had^assured the plaintiff that he "need not worry: once he joined the firm he would have a job for life." ANOTHER VIEW. In reply, Mr. Evans-Scott submitted that the contract should be interpreted as one to employ the plaintiff so long as the defendant company engaged in electrotyping and so long as the plaintiff was ready and willing to do the work. Alternately, ,if that should not be so, the hiring was a yearly one.

His Honour observed that if the contract was a yearly one commencing on July 1, the employers might end it by giving one week's notice at the end of the year. Mr. Evans-Scott said that under such circumstances there- was authority to show that tho computation passed over and commenced from the beginning of the next year. The word "permanent" in this contract, he continued, qualified not tho word eleetrotyper, but the word "engagement." It was an appointment of tho plaintiff to "a permanent engagement," "as our eleetrotyper." "Permanent" in the memorandum and as understood by the parties was used in its ordinary sense. He quoted authorities supporting his argument as to the- meaning aud use of "permanent" in varjous connections.

(Proceeding.)