Cxov-room v. A. CunxixcHas & Ca.
This was a claim for $28.75, wages and overtime due.
The plaintiff was called and said he had been employed by the defendants as a compositor. On the 13th of May he received a letter from Canton saying that his father was ill and wished him (plaintiff) tu come home. He gave notice to foreman and to Mr. Cunningham that he wished to leave at the end of the. month. He gave notice in writing to Mr. Cunningham, but got no reply.' The foreman, how-
Shanghai, 30th July. Before Taotai Tsar Catiix, President of the Bureau of Foreign Affairs at Nanking, and Sir Nicuoras J. Haxses, H.B.M.'s Consul-General.
Besnentz v. van Kranonan Derexce ax Pay Deranntest.
This was a resumed sitting of a Court constituted under the provisions of Article {of the Tientsin Treaty of 1858. and Section 2, Sub-section 3, of-the Chefoo Convention 1876, to enquire into the claim by Messrs. Bennertz and Ca. against the Kinngnan Defence and Pay Department. The proceedings now -take place at the Canton Gull it LID. Wilklason, with whom was Nin ever, said that Mr. Cunning] had no Me.
Nelson (Messrs Johnson, Stokes and Master), appeared for the plaintiffs, and objection to his leaving, Plaintiff left on Mr. W. V.-Drumniond for the defendants. the 29th of May. He asked Mr. Cunningham for his wages and was told that he Upon the Court assembling: Bennertz was further re-examined by would bg paid later on. His claim was for £21.10 wayes.for May last, and the balance Mr. Wilkinson, and put in several more vouchers in support of his claim: for overtime in September. He had been in defendants' employ ever since they started Mr, Ignatz Pollak. was. then -called and business, during which time he had been amined by. Mr. Nelson. He said he absent in Canton for more than.a month. joined'the firm of Bennertz and Ca. as jer in February, 1896. He did not the plaintiff had-been' employed by his Mr. A. Cunningham sworn, said that barm put much capital in the firm, Before firm as a news-compositor. Just before joining witness was engaged in: more or joss government business—the import of the end of May plaintiff came to him and munitions of war. He knew Mr. Chu said he wished to go to Canton for a holiday. Witness spoke to the foreman about before joining the firm, having met' him it, who advised him not to let the plainti at Nanking when engaged in some business without 2 month's notice, as they were with the Viceroy Chang Chih-tung. Ho short-handed. Witness then informed the met, Mr. Chu in Shanghai subsequently. plaintiff that if he wished to leave without Witness had been in Court during the examination of Mr. Bennertz and had also Pialntif lett on the 28th of without oper norite he mirist first find a substitute, read his evidence, with which he agreed. witness's knowledge. Some' time in the During the negotiations connected. with first week in June he came.to witness for the charter-pat, Chu did not ask for his wages and was informed that as he any. securi fore handing over the had left without proper notice he would steamers. Mr. Rosenzweig, however, not be paid. Mr. Cunningham said. that wrote a letter to Mr. Chu guaranteeing the in September, 1896,' a similar claim was payment of the: first charter money, with which Mr. Chu was satisfied. Witness made against his firm before Mr. Jamieson, who decided that if a servant left his em-entirely agreed with Mi hertz' evidence ployer without proper notice he was not regarding the: state of the steamers when entitled to his wages for the month in had. Wittioss complained to Mr. Ko about the ai taken'over. which he left, and witness's firm trouted that decision as a precedent, His Honour said that he should uphold Mr. Jamieson's decision that a servant could not leave his employer without proper notice, and that if he did so he was not entitled to his wages.
Judgment was therefore entered: for the defendants, with costs.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.