AN EDITOR’S CLAIM

Gisborne Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1628, 16 December 1905, Page 2

AN EDITOR’S CLAIM

ENTITLED TO SIX MONTHS’ NOTICE.

(Per Press Association.) Wellington, last night. The case of Jamas D. Siovwright against the New Zsaland Times Company was decided to-day by Ml- Jmtice Cooper and a special jury of four. Mr Myers appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Findlay for tbo defendant. The claim was for £312, being oco year's salary (£416), I:S3 payments made by defendant Company. In opening his ease Mr Myeis said his c'ient was tm» p'oyod by the defendant Company as ‘ edilor of the New Zealand Mail, and for a ' time as day editor of the New Zealand Times. Owing to caprica of a new management his services were dispensed with, three months’ nolioe being given. It j wes contended that there wfs no queetioi raffed as to platutiff’s ability or steadinesi and character, and that the only questiot to go to the jury was as to wbat wai rea onab'e nolio3 to givo to a man occupying the position plaintiff held. In adders sing the jury for the dtfonco Mr Findlay contended that it would be unfair to journalism on both sides (master aud man) if it was laid down that twelve months’ notice wes necessary. Mobility marked in a great degree tbo conditions of lifo in New Zealand, and it was not a true test to set up EDglish conditions as a guide for us. In summing up His Honor said that if ho oould express an opinion, and it seemed to him that he was entitled to do so in this ease, it did seem that there wa3 ho evidence on which a jury oould find that the plaintiff was en itled to twelve months’ notice. Whether ho war entitled to more than tbrps months’ notice war another matter. After twelve minute)’ deliberation the jury returned a verdict that threo months’ notice was not euffieionf, and were of opinion that sis months notice should have been given. His Honor said he quile agreed with the verdict.

Judgment was accordingly entered for an additiona* £lO4, with coats on the lower Boale.