Shanghai, February 17.
Savemarez, A. Marek, Tatnuiro axp ce.
This was an appeal from the judgement delivered in the Provincial Court in Tientsin on December 30 last. iff claimed damages from nts for wrongful dismissal, commission at the rate of per cent on "Y+ the net profits of the tailoring department, and a second-class passage from Tientsia to England: in all $3,300.
Io the original statement of claim the plaintiff alleged that he was dismixsed on October 15 without notice. Defendants in_ their answer, alleged that the plaintiff' had not' carried out Iawfol orders entrusted to him, or faithfully obeyed their rules, and regulations. They offered him $200 which he would not accept, and were willing to pay hie second-class passage to England if he travelled there. They also paid into Court $128.85 as settlement of the commission claimed.
Mr. J. T. Pratt, H. B. M. Vice-Consul, held that the defendants were justified in dismissing the plaintiff because of an assault on one of defendants' employees, and gave judgement fur the defendants with costs, less the sum of $83.47, cost of issuing the writ of sum: mons.
The assessors who sat with Mr.
Pratt, Messrs. R. K. Douglas and R. M. Gatliff dissented from this decision on the ground that the assault complained of had been - committed under considerable provocation and was not sufficient to justify dismissal, and also because defendant had shown a strong desire to get rid of the plaintiff on account of poorness of trade, making the assault an excuse for dismissing him. They stated that they considered that the plaintiff was entitled to more than the amount paid into Court, and suggested that he be paid £100 by way of damages and his passage to England.
The plaintiff appealed from Mr. Pratt's decision on the grounds that the Court was in error in admitting evidence of the alleged act of violence, that it was in error in finding that a single act of violence justified the dismissal, and that the judgement was contrary to the evidence.
Mr. L. E. P. Jones appeared for the appellant; respondents were represented by Mr. R. E. Gregson.
Mr. Jones read over the original pleadings, the correspondence put in at the hearing, the evidence, and the decision of the Court and the Assessors' dissent therefrom. He stated that the plaintiff was an expert cutter and tailor, and that he had been engaged in London, where he had been employed by the well-known firm of The justification which was Court to be sufficient for his was the striking by plainti nese employed by the defendants. The admission of evidence on this point was objected to at the hearing on the ground that it was evidence of justification different from that alleged in the pleadings. The objection wax overruled and this was the only justification that had been proved. Counsel then went on to enumerate the cireumstances that would justify instant dismissal, and dealt with the case of Baster The London County Printing Works (L. RK. B. D., 1899, Vol. 1, p. 901) which had been referred to in the arguments before the Provincial Court. After commenting at length on the evidence adduced at Tientsin, counsel asked his Lordship to vary the judgement of the Provincial Court, by increasing the amount of damages awarded to plaintiff, and to allow plai his costs in the Provincial Court and on appeal.
Mr. Gregson submitted that the Provincial Court was justified in finding it did. He submitted that plaintiff was not taken by surprise when his assault on one of the firm's employees was raised as a ground for his dismissal. Plaintiff, from his own evidence, could not get on well with the Chinese.
His Lordship—There is no contract that he should.
Mr. Gregson submitted evidence showed was the culminating point of imino: disturbances which had been on for a considerable time. He co.-
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.