CLAIM FOR £300

Hokitika Guardian, 21 June 1930, Page 6

CLAIM FOR £3OO

GREY DRAPER SUED

ALLEGED BROKEN ENGAGEMENT

CHRISTCHURCH, June 19. A claim for £3OO for alleged Avrong--lul dismissal Avas heard in the

Supreme Courte before Justice Kennedy. Samuel .M’Dougall. a salesman, of Christchurch, the plaintiff, alleged that the defendant, Leslie Beaumont Miller, agreed to give him permanent employment,. Plaintiff came from Glasgow to New Zealand, and after Avorking from December 14, 1928, to -'lay 18, 1929. he was dismissed. Mr M.’Lachlan appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Donnelly for the defendant.

The statement of claim set out that in .July, 1928, defendant verbally agreed Avitli plaintiff in Glasgow to employ plaintiff as a draper’s assistant for an indefinite period. Plaintiff Avas requested to proceed to NeAV Zealand to take - up the work. Plaintiff commenced'work in Greymouth for defendant on December 14, 1928, at a

salary of £5 per week. In January, 1929, defendant requested plaintiff to arrange for his wife and family to come to New Zealand and in consideration defendant Avas to employ plaintiff pennancmUy. On May 2, 1929, plaintiff’s wife and family arrived. On May 18, plaintiff was dismissed. Pia’iitiiff claimed £260 (/JO week’s at £6), plus £6O travelling expenses of plaintiff and plaintiff’s Avife and family from GlasgOAV to New Zealand. The defence Avas that when defendand visited Glasgow in 1928 he was asked by plaintiff’s brother to visit his relatives, including plaintiff. Plaintiff asked defendant if he , could find him any employment in New Zealand. After defendant had returned to New

Zealand lie discussed the situation

with plaintiff’s brother, and the latter agreed to pay plaintiff’s fare to Ncav Zealand. Defendant promised to give plaintiff employment as a packer fti his Greymouth business .at £5, but no agreement as to permanent employment AV(is made. The plaintiff was in The same, position as other, employees in the shop, and his einployment Avas subject to a Aveek’s notice. A further defence Avas that plaintiff persistently refused and neglected to do his Avork, Avas constantly absent during AAmrking hours, disobeying the lawful orders of the defendant, and drank alcoholic liquor during Avorking hours until it became impossible to employ plaintiff. The defendant, it was stated, had, oil several occasions since he.- dismissed the plaintiff, ■ tried, to...phl;ain.. employment for him but plaintiff had neglected and refused to attend at the .times and places necessary. Mr M’Laehlan said that during May defendant agreed Avitli plaintiff that everything wag going on satisfactory ■and the matter of permanent employment Avas confirmed. ToAvards the end of May plaintiff-Avas dismissed.. It ivas denied that the idea of coming to Ncav Zealand originated hvitli plaintiff. Defeiiclajit; oiit of compassion• for plaintiff’s ..'wife, arranged for them to go into a fruit shop in Colombo Street. The rent avus £2 10s per Aveek and the business avus not a success. “GREAT THINGS IN N.Z.”

Plaintiff said that in August-, 1928, defendant paid him a visit in GlasgoAv and asked him if he Avould like to come out to NeAV Zealand. When defendant arrived back in NeAV Zealand, he cabled Avitness asking him if ,he avoiikl come out. Miller, while at I Home, told him of the great things in j New Zealand and said that lie Avould give witness, a permanent job. Witness at the time Avas a handyman in the employ of the Corporation Tramways in GlasgOAV. Tne salary Avas £3 1.2,s and with overtime £6. The chances of promotion were- good.. During defendant’s stay, in Glasg-OAv, witness entertained him to the best of his ability. Witness invited Miller to have a “spot’ in an hotel. This Miller declined, but lie requested witness to go and have one. To All- M’Lachlan, Avitness said that, lie never drank in working hours. Witness said that in Junuary, 1929,i defendant said in confidence that lie Avas opening in a big Avay in Christchurch and lie Avould grte Avitness a job and a house. Miller’s intentions Avere not carried out.

Witness was going to Hokitika one Saturday night, when he was told that he could linish up that night. Defendant agreed to put plaintiff and his wile into a little shop. It was a very poor arrangement. Two weeks after commenced in -no tshop, defendant brought a young lady along to the shop and told witness to pay her 30s a week. Plaintiff went in search of work and lie refused charitable aid. To Mr Donnelly. Witness emphatically denied that he had taken drink in working hours; that lie smoked in the lavatory in working hours, and that he had taken an hour and a half for lunch.

Annie M’Dougall, wife of plaintiff, said that it was untrue that she had appealed to defendant for him to get her husband work in New Zealand. Miller had told them that plaintiff was the type of man who was wanted in New Zealand. He spoke of the beautiful places in New Zealand and said that poverty was unknown in the country. The children went to school in silks, and he was the supplier of the silks for them to go in. Witness admitted that in Glasgow they lived in one room with two beds in it. The corporation, however, wore building houses and 'they -expected to shift into one.