A rather curious professional case was decided this week in
the Queen's Bench Division. The proprietors of the Times were dissatisfied with Mr. Lowe, lately their correspondent at Berlin, substantially for "taking too much upon himself," and after a rather sharp correspondence, dismissed him with six months' pay in lieu of notice, and £100 as voluntary com- pensation for removing his furniture. Mr. Lowe, greatly irritated, not so much by his dismissal as by the disinclina- tion of employers to engage a man dismissed by the Times, brought an action for twelve months' pay, alleging that this was the custom of the profession. He was unable to prove that contention, and after a quantity of expert evidence had been given, the jury found a verdict for the Times. Mr. Lowe must have been very badly advised. Twelve months' notice is rarely given even to an editor, and we should say that, legally, no other employe of a newspaper was entitled to more than one month. It would be harsh and unjust to give so short a notice to a war-correspondent, who risks his life, or to a special correspondent, who has often to hire a house ; but six months' notice is sufficient for justice, and, legally, the pre- sumption is for a much shorter time. Why journalists, how- ever, do not obtain written statements of their terms of engagement, we never could make out, and strongly suspect that the objection comes from their side. They hate to be bound, which is reasonable enough ; but then, they should take the consequences.
Previous page
