CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
(Press Assn.—
DECISION RESERVED IN THE FINN CASE COMPENSATION ISSUE
-By Telegraph — Copyright).
Auckland, Wednesday The hearing of legal argument in George Finn's action against . the Crown was continued this morning. Counsel for the suppliant said that Finn was not entitled to payment in respeet of his office, because he was dismissed from it, but he was entitled to damages. Mr. Mereditli, for the Crown, argued that Finn's office had been abolished by an amendment to the Act of 1931, which set up a different board. Mr. Justice Reed: Must I not assume that Parliament would not de-libe-rately break a contract without providing compensation for the person set aside? Can you find me any English case in which a person has been deprived of his office without compensation? Mr. Meredith said he could not, but there was a Canadian case. There was an English authority for saying that such a matter as this should not be dealt with hy a.Court of law, but by petition -to the Government. The Crown contended that there was no contract. After hearing argument decision was reserved.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/RMPOST19330629.2.30
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 570, 29 June 1933, Page 5
Word count
Tapeke kupu
185CLAIM FOR DAMAGES Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 570, 29 June 1933, Page 5
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
NZME is the copyright owner for the Rotorua Morning Post. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of NZME. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in