The answer of William Hibberdine, the not think this course would be the best, but His Lordship asked the bigot if he did above-named defendant, to the petition of plaintiff said that he had never received the above-named plaintiff read as follow: proper payment from the defendant, and In answer to the said petition, I, William could not afford to wait any longer for his Hibberdine, say as follows money.
After some discussion as to the terms of—Admit. the agreement between the parties, his—Defendant admits allegation con-Lordship said that plaintiff must go into the tained in paragraph 3 but further alleges box and make his statement. that the agreement contained a clause by James Noble, the plaintiff, stated that with which defendant retained the power to regard to clause four of the agreement he dispense with the services of the plaintiff if engaged himself to the defendant in Hong-the busine-ses carried on at cl49 Trendong kong. Ihe defendant did not tell him on Road, did not justify the employment of a the th or Sth of May, 1901, that be could not afford to keep him.
—Admit.
By his Lords! He secured orders for—Admit. the plaintiff in Hongkong.
—efendant denies that plaintiff work-'The plaintiff handed his Lordship a letter which was written to him while he was in el for defendant consecutively between the 18th day of April, 1901, and the 13th day of May, 1902. Defendant availing himself Hongkong be the defendant, ordering him what to do there.
The plaintiff said that he received salary of the above-mentioned clause in agreement but giving plaintiff the option to for part of May and part of June, and the defendant informed him that he was hard m into defendant's employ should the up bat would make good whatever was business increase or defendant require owing to him.
The defendant stated that on the 18th September, 1901, he paid the plaintiff everyff to Honor thing that was owing to him up to that date. The amount was $235.60.
dant went on strictly personal The plaintiff admitted receiving payment of this amount, but contended that he was Admit. not paid for the month in Hongkong. The defendant, who went to England—Defe dant denies allegations made and returned in March last, said that at the in paragraph 12 and says as follow: and of that month he paid the plaintiff' $75. Defendant left Walter Herbert Winning The pi: thought that he ought to have as his manager with an recount of $1,120 $10, butes he had only worked for the at the Chartered Bank of India, China and defendant since the 20th March he was not Australia, Defendant sent $622 during entitled to the full salary. his absence; there were also. monies By his Lordship—During the absence of received for work done, making the defendant in England the plaintiff was sufficient to pay the slaintif's he had been in defendant's paid by Mr. Williams.
The plaintift—I received moneys, but not Defendant again availing himself the full salary.
mentioned clause in agreement.
When defendant returned to Sha the It was pointed out by the plaintiff that the defendant had admitted in his own aforesaid that plaintiff had received a'l monies due handwriting that he owed him $100 for work done in Hongkong. to him as per arrangements made when defendant left Shanghai nti The defendant denied that he owed this claim nor in any way sh he thong money, and said that the admittance in defendant owed him any wages. Defend-writing was a mistake. ant specifically stipulated that he would His Lordship said that the not be responsible for wages to the plain-amount due for wages from the 1 question of ith Septem-
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.