At the beginning of August last plaintiff went to Mr. Griffin to know whether he could have his; three weeks' holiday. Plaintiff went to the editor, because in every newspaper effies the editorial and business sides were entirely separate. On such occasions it was! the duty of the reporter to go to the editor. It would be most awkward for an editor if a reporter obtained leave from the management of a newspaper without first obtaining his editor's consent. Mr. Griffin had been quite agrecable. Mr. Davey had just gone on leave. With his editor's permission, plaintiff went on leave. On the morning he left Mr. Davey returned. When he came back plaintiff received a letter dispensing with his services and enclosing a compra-dare order for $400, being his salary for August. Defendants alleged that plaintiff absented himself from the offices on almost every afternoon in April, 1922, without doing any work for them. A reporter who sat in an office was of no earthly use to any newspaper. It could be seen from a collection of cuttings of plaintiff's work, how absolutely wild such allegations were. Objection was taken to re ports that plaintiff wrote for another newspaper, and on the ground that he obtained outside work. Plaintiff took on a report of the Whangpoo Conservancy Board inquiry, for which work he received Tls. 2,000, but he was given two months leave by the "Shanghai Mercury" on full salary, to enable him to take up this work.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.