UNVERACIOUS REFERENCES.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 9046, 23 March 1908, Page 4

UNVERACIOUS REFERENCES.

The value of testimonials wa3 demonstrated at the Wellington Magistrate's Court on Friday last. A blacksmith sued his lata employer for damages for wrongful dismissal, and the nefence set up was that the claimant was a bad workman—that, in fact, he did not know his trade. This seemed a legitimate enough explanation, but unhappily for the defendant, he found himself "hoist with his own petar." When he dis-

missed the said "bad workman" he

gave the latter a testimonial certifying to his excellent qualifications, in tha very capacity from which he had been "shot" for incapacity. The magistrate, in giving judgment for claimant, censured the employer for his ill-considered action. That was quite proper; but his Worship was not upon such solid ground when he informed the defendant that "it was always better to tell the truth in such a matter." One can imagine what the consequences might be to the employer who, in dismissing an employee, gave him a "testimonial" embodying his opinion of the employee's incapacity. The law of libel is sufficiently comprehensive to be dangerous in such a case, but something very definite might happen to the employer as a condition precedent to a libel action. In that case would not the magistrate be morally responsible for either the libel action, or ths assault and battery?