By written agreement dated London July 4, 1906, plaintiff was engaged as a clerk of the defendants for China for: three years, According to number LI of the contract he was obliged to execute the work entrusted to him with diligence and conscientiousness. The salary for the first year was 32,300, for the second $2,500, and for the third $2,800. In the summer of 1906 he took over his position at Shanghai. It consisted in the work of secretary to the Shanghai manager of the firm, the partner Lemke, but besides this, und for the greater part, he was entrusted with decoding of business telegrams in the cable department. Plaintiff asserts that by the partner Arnhold of London he was expressly engaged only as x shorthand writer and typewriter, but as he has expressly admitted, he has partaken in the work of the cable service from the beginning. For when, as he states, the work was handed over to him by his predecessor with the information that he would have to partake in the work of the cable department, he was astonished, but has taken over the work without a word of objection, in the hope that with regard to his greater work his salary would be raised correspondingly. This hope was realized.
February 1, 1907, his salary was, on his preceding remonstrations, raised to $200 'a month, and in acknowledgement of his work on March 1, 1907, without his application, to $225 a month. The cable service brought about that intiff had often to work after 5 o'clock in the afternoon, especially as since about the middle of September 1907 another arrangement was instituted for the telegraphic communication between the Hankow branch and the London office. Against the work after 5 o'clock plaintiff first objected in his letter of October 1. 1907, (page 12 of documents); there he declared to be willing to work after the usual close of business—by which he understood 5 o'clock in the afternoon—only if an increase of salary to #300 a month would take place. This was declined. After a verbal explana tion with the partner Lemke on October 9 hud taken place without result, plaintiff fixed his point of view again in his letter of October 15 (page 14 of documents) to the effect that he was not willing to work outside the business hours customary at Shanghai. On the same day a letter of the firm (page 13 of documents) had been handed up to him, reproaching him for having in the last days left office repeatedly before finishing the work entrusted to him, that is to say, the decoding of important telegrams, and under the reproach of doing the same again on October 15, he was dismissed by letter of the same day (page 15 of documents).
All this has been established without doubt. The correspondence mentioned and the agreement of July 4, 1906 are referred to.
Plaintiff now contends that he has been wrongfully dismissed by defendants. To prove this, he makes the following statements In the negotiations with the partner Arnhold in London about his engagement with defendants, it had been expressly agreed upon his service to be restricted to shorthand-writing and typewriting, whereby the low figures of salary as fixed were well explained. There had been mo question of decoding telegrams. Likewise in Febraary 1907, when he asked the partner Lemke for a rise of salary, the latter expressly declared to plaintiff, hho was only engaged as w shorthand-writer and typewriter, and ay such people were to be had at Shanghai for 3200 a month, Mr. Lemke would raise his salary to $200. In order to prove this, he called pon the partners Arnhold and Lemke to day his statement on oath, But even if he, the plaintiff, had been obliged to partake in the cable work, this obligation could only extend to the business hours as customary in the Shanghai trade, that is to say, until o'clock on week days, except on Saturdays, and till 1 o'clock in the afternoons on Saturdays, especially as in the defendants' own office these hours: were adhered to. Such was besides made possible by the regulation given in the winter 1906-7, according to which all business telegrams had to be handed up to the cable department by 3 o'clock. In September 1907, however, the arrangement was made that the Hankow branch of defendants sent their daily London telegrams for dispatch t> London at 4.30 p.m. from Hankow to defendants at Shanghai. The telegram could then not be shanghai before 5 o'clock, and in this way it had always been about 6 o'clock before he could have left office. In order to prove all these facts, plaintiff called upon defendants to deny these statements on oath, other means of evidence reserved.
Plaintiff, therefore, claims payment of his full salary for the remainder of the time of agreement on the figures of salary as fixed in the written agreement, so that defendants may be ordered to pay $4,918,05 and the costs of the suit, Defendants ask that the action be dismissed, and plaintiff be ordered to
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.