Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

AN INTERESTING CASE

SEQUEL TO THE LICENSING POLL. lA claim by J. A. Wialsh the Licensed Victuallers' Assoc'ation was heard at Pahiatua on W< Jnesday, before Mr L. U. Reid, S.M., for the balance of salary as organising secretary at the recent election, and bonus -promiskl to plain tiff !s wife in the event of No-license not being carried. ;

The plaintiff stated in his evidence that he"was- employed by the Licensed Victuallers' Association as organising canvasser at a salary of £7 per week from 2nd .'October to 20th November, wlhen he was summarily dismissed without proper grounds. That at the election. No-license was defeated, and the defendants now refused tojpay the balance of salary (£18) due to him, and the bonus of £SO promised, to ihis wife. The defendant's .solicitor contended itlliat the bonus agreed to be paidjto the wife was not enforcable at law. She- .was to" tibe' a^reeranent.-: furtlief. "alleged that plaintiff.; hi's dwties,. aftd" iJMit he was hot; entitled to recover any further salary from the date of his. dismissal."

The plaintiff's solicitor, /admitted that in poinft of }aw # £b& bonus* of £SO was not recoverable under the agreement, but that tire defendants ought to pay it, and their refusal to do so was a shameless, violation of a bona fid© agreement, .'after * the plaintiff's wife had given, her services and worked oil their behalf. He contended, , however, that the plaintiff was clearly entitled to recover his salary, or in the alternative damages for wrongful dismissal,-as there was no'evidence of habitual' neglect of duties. After .hearing the evidence and legal argument, the Magistrate held that' ■the plaintiff had not been guilty oi such habitual neglect as-to warrant 'hi,?, summary dismissal. He was entitled to. a week's/n'ages in liei* of notice, namely £7','!\ anil *>tidsmaut would be given rfor nip fF for .that amount, each -party to pay Ms own costs.

Mr P. 'L/Holiiugs appeared for plaintiff, and Mr or. H. Smith for .defendants.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WAG19120126.2.20.21

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10542, 26 January 1912, Page 5

Word count
Tapeke kupu
326

AN INTERESTING CASE Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10542, 26 January 1912, Page 5

AN INTERESTING CASE Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10542, 26 January 1912, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert