EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE.

Taranaki Daily News, 20 July 1920, Page 6

EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE.

ALLEGED WRONGFUL DISMISSAL. : PARTUS IN COURT. The history of a short-lived partnership between an American and New Zualander, in establishing a vulcanising business, was related at the New Ply mouth Court yesterday before Mr. T. A. Bailey, S.M, The subject of the dispute was a claim by James Alexander Craig (Mr. Fitzherbert, instructed by Standish and Anderson) against Alfred Ings (Mr. Billing) for £66, being loss of wages (11 weeks at £6) as the result of alleged breach of contract on the pari of defendant. Mr. Fitzherbert said Craig was an American citizen. Early in this year he was met by Ings, the result being thai the two entered into partnership, thoug':by means of a badly-worded sort of *n agreement. The business was a special method of vulcanising. The agreement was drawn up in America and endorse.; with a two-cent stamp, though 'counsel did not know whether or not this was the legal American way. Ings returned to New Zealand and Craig followed at his own expense, after buying a certain amount of plant and equipment. Business was «t '»p in New Plymouth, but apparently affairs did not go too well and an arrangement was made cancelling the partnership, whereby the plaintiff was to get £lB9 for his interest, and was engag?ri io continue for thre->

months in tft-.-. ccxploy of Ings at £6 pev week. Shortfy piterwards he was summanly rtissfispoi «.t 48 hours' notify with pj i-z&x! giyon at the time or fSo».uisei remarked that the oontvect* drawn up were ~o;;.g!> mes and evidcw.iy done by an awwteu-/.. By sSe aienfc Craig wi.« ( t.- agree to tots fa I»ig3, but sbere ',rja nothing to b-.0-i «£a to employ h:r?.. However, in t,v* /<s■ sped aoimee) was of opinion &«.; the Court was bound to draw the iatwewitj that the contnwt was binding ya boih parties. Evidence was given on these lines. Mr. Billing said the case for the defence rested principally on the proposi tion that they were justified in dismissing the plaintiff. Alfred Ings, defendant, said that :« San Francisco, *t, Craig's suggestion, a partnership was orranged. They carjo to New Zealand and were going to commence business in Wellington, but ih*y could not get motor power. Witness had put about £630 into the businessCraig became dissatisfied, and before ■they actually started business requests! •to be paid out. The reason for dismissing Craig wan that witness could .not contend with his uncouth manner, unsatisfactory work, and claiming double time for overtime. Craig did not say anything about getting short notice. Evidence was given by Mrs. H. Leeeh that a tyre, re-treaded by Craig, was not satisfactory. Mr. Billing quoted authority upholding that a servant was liable to instant dismissal for refusal to obey lawful orders. Other extracts were cited in regard to the duties of an employee. He thought the whole object of Craig was to get back to America. Counsel held that there was justification for the dismissal and applied for a non-suit, plaintiff having failed to prove his claim. . Mr. Fitzherbert reviewed the various aspects of the case, also quoting authorities. He pointed out that Ings had said •that £6~per week was an exorbitant wage; also that he had found out about two weeks after the business commenced that they were not working at a profit. Counsel deducted that Ings had taken an opportunity of getting rid of what he considered an expensive worker. His Worship reserved decision till next week. • •