SUPREME COURT.—CIVIL SITTINGS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5396, 13 July 1878, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.—CIVIL SITTINGS.

Friday, July 12. (Before hia Honor Mr. Justice Richmond.) JAMES DOHERTY V. THE WELLINGTON EDUCATION BOARD. The hearing of this case was resumed. Ur. Barton, with him Mr. Pitzhcrbert, for the plaintiff; Mr. Allan, with him Mr. Brandon, junr., for the defendant. Charles Rous-Marten, journalist, stated he was a member of the To Aro school committee in Marsh last. Nothing ns to the intended dismissal of the plaintiff ever* came before the committee, who did not recommend his suspension or dismissal for gross misbehavior. No "complaint ever came before the committee, and no complaint was ever made by the committee. He was reporting at the Education Board meeting held on the 27th March. A discussion took place aa_ to Mr. Doherty refusing to take a month’s notice, . and the Chairman suggested that they should dismiss him summarily. Mr. Gisborne objected, saying that as they had given him a month’s notice they could not dismiss him summarily unless he had been guilty of gross misbehavior, in which case they ought not to have given . him a month’s notice. Mr. Toomafch took the same view. The Chairman then said that he considered Mr. Di>berty’s conduct did amount to gross misbehavior. Immediately after that the Board decided to postpone consideration of the matter. R, T. Walker, a reporter on the Evening Post, stated that he was at a meeting of the Education Board, and got there a few minutes before the Board sat. Mr. 'Pharazyn had a letter from Mr. Doherty in his hand. Mr. Pharazyn said ha thought it was very bad taste for the papers to have published the report referring to the words gross misbehavior, and be added that he did not intend everything he said to go into the papers. When the Board sat Mr. Pharazyn handed in Mr. Doherty’s letter, and the Press were requested to withdraw. Afterwards witness , got from Mr. Dee, from the minutes, a report, which appeared in the Post —at least, not from the minute-book, but from the minutes.on a sheet of foolscap. . The purport of the minute was that Mr. Doherty should be dismissed forthwith; bat he thought no reason was assigned.

.Sarah Wilkinson, a teacher at the Mount Cook infant school, said she supposed there were nearly 600 children there, and when Mr. Doherty was at the school there were between 300 and 400 children. Mr. Doherty organised the school.

Robert Dee, Secretary of the Education Board and Inspector of Schools, stated that the plaintiff had been appointed assistant master at the Te Aro school, at a salary of <6200 a year. He told Mr. Doherty that supposing he had the highest possible qualification it would bring him within the scale to give him the extra allowance, which would bring the total payment up to <6200. He told Mr, Doherty that it was not intended to give him the <620, and Mr-Doherty replied in a very offensive manner—“lt is not straight.” Witness considered that an insult. The statement of Mr. Doherty, that the witnesses verbal statements had no existence in fact, referred to the conversation as to the <620. He considered the letters written by Mr. Doherty constituted a piece of insubordination sufficient to cause the dfcinhwal of any master summarily. The examination and cross-examination of Mr. Dee were very lengthy as to many matters which did not bear much on the case. William Gisborne, M.H.R., and a member of the defendant Board, stated he was not present at the first meeting of the Board when the dismissal of Mr. Doherty was decided upon. He was present when Mr. Doherty wrote a letter declining to accept the month’s notice, and the consideration of the question was postponed. The new Board considered the question. Before coming to a conclusion, the Board sought legal advice, and agreed that it should be treated os a case of summary dismissal.

Edward Toomath, a member of the Board, said he was present when the removal of Mr. Doherty was agreed upon. He came to the conclusion that Mr. Doherty’s case was one which entitled the Board to dismiss him summarily for gross misbehavior. 'Mr. Allan then addressed the jury for the defence. Mr. Barton followed, and his Honor summed up. At half-past 5 o'clock the jury retired, and at a quarter past seven returned into Court, having found on the various issues as under : A, Are the defendants indebted to the plaintiff in any and what sum for salary as such assistant master ’—No. The claimed for the mopfch of April, and lie was not then in their employ.

5. Are the defendants indebted to the plaintiff in any and what sum for house rent allowance ?—No.

6. Did the defendants wrongfully dismiss the plaintiff from his office of assistant master; and if so, when 2—Yes ; as from the 31st March, 1878. 8. Did the defendants libel the plaintiff, as in the third count of the declaration alleged ?—No. By direction of the Judge. 9. Did the defendants conspire together with Charles Graham and Robert Lee, or either of them, to defraud the plaintiff, and deprive him of his rights and privileges as a duly appointed teacher, by causing a false entry to he made on the defendants’ minutes of a. resolution appointing the plaintiff as a temporary and supernumerary master ? No. By direction of the Judge. 10. Was the plaintiff, by reason of such false entry, hindered from recovering damages for wrongful dismissal ?—No. By direction of the Jndge. ,11. Did the defendant conspire with Robert Lee to defraud the plaintiff and deprive him of his aforesaid rights and privileges, by neglecting to enter in their minnte-book a true and proper minute of their' resolution of appointment of the plaintiff as assistant master as aforesaid ?—No. By direction of the Judge. " 12. Did the defendants libel the plaintiff as in the sixth" coant of the declaration alleged ? —No. By direction of the Judge. 13. Was the plaintiff guilty of gross misbe-' havior within the meaning of the Education Act, 1877, section 47, warranting his peremptory dismissal by the defendants from his said emyloyment as such assistant master as in defendants’ second over plea is alleged ?—No. 1-L What damages if any has the plaintiff sustained under the second count ?—Three months' salary, £SO. His Honor certified that the case, was a proper one to he tried in the Supreme Court, and by a special j ary. This amounts to a verdict for the plaintiff for £SO and costs.

Leave was reserved to the defendants to move on the ground that the Judge ought to have directed the jury that on the evidence they must find the plaintiff’s conduct to have been gross misbehavior within the meaning of the 47th section of the Education Act, 1877. The Court adjourned at half-past 7 o’clock.