H.B.M.'s SUPREME court 25th June.
Before H, 8, Winxrxsox, Eu, Chief Goonwys rv, Evays. vas a case in which Arthur Pearson Goodwyn claimed $1,293 from Wallixm Choma Watts Evans for wrongful dismissal ud breach of contract. Mr. H.C. Brushifield (Messrs. Brushfield and Parkes)
presented the plaintiff, and Mr. FE.
olson (Messrs, Stokes and Platt) the defendant.
plaintiff and the defendant entered into The petition stated, inter alin, that the agreement in writing by which plaintiff agreed to assist defendant in his drapery business, or any other business of a similar nature, for a period of four years and six months from first October, 1900. consideration of such service the defendant eyreed to vay the plaintiff $150 per calendar month during the first and second years of the said term, and $175 per calendar month during the third and fourth years, further ayreving to pay the plaintiff! his second class fare from Shanghai to London at the expiration of the said term of service. The plaintiff continued in the employment of the defendant in accordance with the terms of the agreement until the 10th day of April last, when the defendant wrongfully and unlawful y and without due cause dismissed the plaintiff from his service by sending to him a notice in writing giving the plaintiff one month's notice determining hin said service on 10th day of May following. After the receipt of buch notice the plaintiff continued in the employment of the defendant until 19h April, when the defendant. summarily dismissed the plaintiff fin his service, The plaintiff, in consequence of refusal of defendant to pay him his salary for the months of April and May, and the sums for his passage from Shanghai to London, and damages for wrongful dismissal and breach of contract, prayed that the defendant he ordered to pay to the plaintiff the sum of (x) $150 due for salary for the month of April. pi) $100 for salary ior the month of $393 for eecoud class fare from Shanghai to London.
$600 damages for breach of contract and wrongful dismissal, (e) his costs of suit.
And for such further and other relief og to the Court shall seem just.
The defendant in his answer to the petition, said that he summarily dismissed the plaintiff from his service, but not unlawfully or without due caure. The plaintif® misconducted himself vice of the defendant by wilfully disobeying the reasonable orders of the defendant and failing to perform the same. The defendant therefore dimi plaintiff feom his ser-ice. Qn two occasions the plaintiff supplied goods contrary to the instructions of the def ndaut, to a certain customer at a less price than that fixed by the def-dint. When ordered to take stock of the goods contained in the premises of the defendant, plaintiff refused to do so in a proper manner, omitted to check properly such stock and continually made wrong entries. Plaintiff further mislemducted himself by inselevce to his nuaster, the defendant'.
The defendant brough: into Court the sum of $100 as and for the proportionate amount of the plaintiffs s-lary up to 19h May, together with $25 for costs thereon, and alleged th: such sum ut to satisfy any chain the plainti might have against hin The defendant the afore prayed for dismissal of the action against him.
'Mr. Nelson subwiited that the point at issue was whether the notice given to the plaintiff on the 10th April was reasonably yvon in xccurdance with the agreement and whether there was justification for summary dismissa'. His client claimed that the first notice was given by reason of neglect, incompetence, and general refusal to obey orders on the part of the plaintiff, and the notice of summery dismiss! on account of non-explanation of serious Jeet of duty and failure to perform r_tasks. It was the duty of the King stock of the drapery in the establishment some time in February, and affixing certain marks to the various articles in accordance with the custom of the business. Towards the end of March the defendant discovered chat these marks were not being affixed, and ordered them to be, The plaintiff did not obey the order, and the result was that the defendant had'to do the whole of the stock-taking himself, the work necessitating his being engaged all one Saturday and Sunday to finish taking stock by lst March.
At this point, His Lordship asked what was the whole amount chimed by the plaintiff, The exse was one which was usually heard by a jury.
Mr. Nelson said tint he thought his Lordship would be sitting ws a jury.
Me Brushifield said that the amount of the claim was 1,293 dollars.
His Lordship—Is there any pos 5 of your arriving at a satisfactory solution of the case?
Mr. Brushfield said_he did not think there was such a possibility, as the parties to the case had tried to arrange it sutisiactory before it came into Court, but without success.
His Lordship said that he would like an effort to be made to arrange the case before it proceeded any further, and expressed hi readiness to assist counsel in chambers in the matter.
After a private consultation Mr, Nelson informed his Lordship that no settlement could he effected, and continued with his statement for the defendant. Ho said that the plaintiff had sold some goods at a less cost than he should have sold them. When taxed with this the plaintiff placed in she file the balanes of the cost of some of the goods, but not of the others, He was also insulting in his language to his master, the defendant, Upon the Court reassembling at two o'clock, William Thomas Evans, the defendant, was put into the box. ' He said, in answer to Mr, Nelson, that his cause of complaint against the plaintiff was noncompliance with his wishes. Plaintiff made wrong entries in the approval book, which interfered with his system of keeping afcouut of the actual cost of the goods, His reason for this system, which was one of pher, was to check hiv stock. In some stances the plaintiff followed out this aystem, but in other instances he did not, On note than one occasion he complained to the plaintiff, but no improvement resulted. He nlways'took his stock up to Slat March, and the duties of plaintiff' were ug and counting goods. In_ the jensurement of a piece, the plaintiff eto nix a ticket to it denoting its cost in cipher. Plaintiff was allowed months in which to tuke stock of the tore. He first discovered that ug was wrong with this stock-taking, when he began to copy down in a book from the tickets,
handed to his Lordship " number stage of the proceedings, the of monos of ligerepancies which he found upon checking the mensurems of some of the stock taken by the plaintiff. In one instance a set of toilet covers was marked down as worth more than its real value. There were dozens of other memos of a lar character which he made at the time, but had since Uhrown awa; In further reply. to Mr. Nelson, the defendant said that when he discovered these errors he told plainti® that it was not very creditable way of taking stock. Plaintif' blamed the boy for the mistakes which hud occurred, On account of these errors the defendant took stock of his goods himself when he had time to do so. This extra work entailed him working all day on Sunday. When questioned about the mistakes the pluintif® said that he was doing as he had done in other places, Defendant said that plaintiff would have to follow out his instructions, ando as he wished him. He informed plaintiff that a correct stock must be taken, and allowed him February and March to take itin, 'The plaintiff, in making the entry into a book of the sale of some hats, putin the wrong cost marks. Tu looking at this entry the defendant knew a mistake had been made and' asked the plaintiff about it. Plaiatiff said that the entry was correct, but afterwards found out that he was wrong and made an alteration in the book. The defendant then made up his mind to give plaintiff' a month's notice. On the 11th April he received a letter from Mr. Brushfield which it was stated that plaintiff bad expressed himself sorry for the errors which had crept into the stocktaking, and conelidling with a hope that settlement would be arranged. The plume Lif! had not expressed to him his regret for committal of the errors, and he wrote back a letter stating that Lo was not going to put competency and insult from the plaintiff, A customer, ove day asked the plaintiff for some black corded ribbon, of which they had some in stock, but he said they had un On being asked why he 8 this the plaintiff replied that the customer should have inquired for benda-live ribbon. It was his duty to show customers what ribbons they had in stock, and not say there was not the right sort inthe shop. Ca another occasion the plaintiff sold a hat for $2.5 when it should ave been dearer, and two hat bauds for $1.40 which should have been sold at $1.50. He had no right whatever to do this. Plaintiff aleo made the remark la his (witness') hearing that he would sell a 75 cents article for (0 cents if the governor were not in the office. On being taxed with this remark the plaintiff said it was only a joke, but admitted that the customer being an employe in another store he let him have things cheaper, and at 10 per cent. discount. The discount on the bands was equivalent 17 per cent. He had no right todo this, The same employe once before obtained a 25 cents article for 15 cents, and later on entered up the balance in the daily cash book. The plaintiff sent out one day eighteen dozen yards of braid at 90 conte 8 dozen on approval. Three days afterwards the braid was returned, and on looking at
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.