ORGANISER v. NO-LICENSE COUNCIL.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 1014, 6 July 1911, Page 3

ORGANISER v. NO-LICENSE COUNCIL.

At the Palmerston S.M. Court on Tuesday last William Ritchie, of Palmerston North, agent, claimed from G. A. Rockel (Carnarvon), J. K. Horublow (Foxton) and John Mathesou (Kairauga)—president, committeeman and treasurer, respectively, of the Manawatu No-License Council—the sum of £73 ns, balance of salary alleged to be due to plaintiff as orgauiser, between April 1 and August 31, 1910. Mr limes appeared for plaintiff, and Mr A. R. Atkinson, of" Wellington, for defendants. Mr Innes in opening said that on August 24, 1910, Mr Ritchie was dismissed without notice, and, it was contended, without justification and illegally. On September 2 following, he gave notice to the council that he desired to resign, and suggested that his resignation should take effect as from August 31. This was apparently agreed to. The salary claimed was £B6 13s 3d, less £l3 2s 4d collected on account of the “Dreadnought” publication. The plaintiff, in evidence, stated that at a meeting of the council, on August 24, a motion was carried dispensing with his services. On the 27th he wrote to Mr Rockel, stating that his (Mr Ritchie’s) dismissal was not in accordance with the terms of his appointment, and claiming four weeks’ salary. The contract provided for a mouth’s notice, and plaintiff did not take it that the contract terminated on August 24. The sum of ,£l3 2s 4d credited against the claim represented money received on account of the No-License publication, the “Dreadnought,” of which he had charge. Plaintiff had transferred the contract for the printing of the “Dreadnought” from Foxton to Feildiug. But for the heat thus caused, he thought the lone of the meeting in question would have been different. The motion dispensing with his services was moved by Mr Hornblow and seconded by Mr Whibley. Plaintiff delivered to the couucil all its documents in his possession. Mr Rockel, he understood, was now secretary of the body, which had been re-formed after the split in regard to the advisability or otherwise of employing an organiser. Under cross-examination by Mr Atkinson, witness admitted that he had urged the appointment of an orgauiser. He admitted that a portion of a report produced, advocating the appointment of an organiser and stating that he (Ritchie) would guarantee to raise the funds, was his, but had no recollection of sending it to the Couucil. By stating he would guarantee the collection of the funds, witness’ desire was to justify his financial report. Witness denied that at the time of his appointment that one of the conditions was that he should ccllect his own salary, and failing which he would not get it. He said that the minutes of the meeting did not contain any mention of such condition.

Mr Atkinson: No, but the minutes are yours, and I am going to bring evidence to prove that they are incorrect. Plaintiff was severely dealt with at this stage by counsel for hE evasive answers to simple questions.

Witness was still being crossexamined when the Court adjourned for lunch. After the luncheon adjournment, a conference between the parties was held, and on resuming Mr Innis announced that the case had been settled out of Court.