DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 9045, 21 March 1908, Page 6

DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT.

. + MATTHEWS v. WELLINGTON AND WAIRARAPA MOTOR COMPANY.

The Registrar of the Wairarapa District Court (Mr M. Foley) read a written judgment at a special sitting of the Court yesterday in the case of E. G. F. Matthews v. Wellington and Wairarapa Motor Cycle Company, claim for £7B damages for wrongful dismissal. _ The text of the judgment, which is by District Judge Haselden, is as follows :

In this action, which was tried before judge and jury of four, the plaintiff claimed £IOO, the balance of a year's salary alleged to be due to him by the defendant company, less the sum of £23, amount due by him to the company. The statement of claim in effect alleged that on the Ist June, 1907, he was the managing director of the defendant company at a salary of £2OB a year, and a bonus to be decided annually by the directors. That on the 7th December the defendant company dismissed the plaintiff, and the plaintiff claims £2OB, being a year's salary, less £lO7 received on account, and less the sum of £23 as stated. The defendant company's statement of defence in effect pleads (1) No written contract, or contract under seal. (2) That by article 7. of the company's articles of association, the plaintiff was appointed managing director during the pleasure of the directors, and that in terms of the said article the plaintiff might be removed at any time without notice, and that he was so removed. (3) That the plaintiff so misconducted himself in the office of managing director that his removal was justifiable. Only two issues were left to the jury. (1). When as a matter of fact did the plaintiff's employment as managing director begin?— Answer: On Ist June, 1907. (2) Has the plaintiff been guilty «f misconduct justifying his dismissal?— Anwser: No. The question of law, and the amount to which the plaintiff is entitled, if entitled at all, have been, by consent, left to the judge to decide.

At the first meeting of the company held after registration the following resolution was passed:— That Mr E. G. F. Matthews be appointed managing director of the company at a salary of £2OB per annum, and the question of a bonus be left to the directors to decide. This resolution is recorded in the minutes, and signed by the presiding director. On 7th December, 1907, the plaintiff was practically dismissed, and as the -jmy have found, without any misconduct on his part justifying his dismissal. The defendant company now relies upon legal and technical defences. In my opinion, there was a hiring by the defendant company of the plaintiff for a year, and that as such the contract need not be in writing, and that, if necessary, to he in writing, there was such writing in the minute signed and confirmed by a director acting under the authority of the company. The relationship of master and servant existed between the defendant company and the plaintiff. Artcle 7of the articles of association is as follows: —"The directors may from time to time appoint one of their body to be a managing director of the company, either for a fixed time or without any limitation as to the period which he is to hold such office, and may from time to time remove, or dismiss him from office and appoint another in his place." This does not give the company the right to dismiss, regardless of the contract entered into with the plaintiff, nor does it abrogate any legal rights of the plaintiff, and must be read as though it said "subject to the legal rights of the respective parties the directors' may, etc." It appears to me that the form in which the plaintiff has brought his action is in accordance with modern practices. On the findings of the jury I must, therefore, give judgment for the plaintiff, with a reasonable sum for damages. Considering the class of employment, and all the circumstances, I am of opinion that a three months' notice, or three months' salary in lieu of notice, is reasonable and sufficient, and I therefore give judgment for the plaintiff for the sum of £29, being £52 for three months salary, less the sum of £23 due by the plaintiff to the defendant company. Costs will be allowed to plaintiff's solicitor for £3 3s, costs of jury and witnesses and Court fees, and I certify it was a proper cass to bring in the District Court. Mr B. J. Dolan appeared for plaintiff, and Messrs C. A. Pownall and D. K. Logan for the defendant company.