Judge Against Leslie E. Haynes on All Points: Ample Cause for Dismissal Intreduction of Recriminations:
Not Editor nor Assistant In H. M, Supreme Court, Nvered judgment in the case of on Saturday, Judge Grain de-Leslie E. Haynes v. the Shanghai Mercury, Ld,, a claim for salary in lieu of notice.
His Lordship decided against the plaintiit on all the ints at issue and gave judgment for the defendants, with costs. Plaintiff was represented by Mr. L. K, Kentwell and the defendants by Mr. R. E. S.
Gregson.
Laniship Tu this cate, Uiroloved bythe "Sangha cuny''ae hesitant editor from July employed reba Mer-
Jozs, to May 90, 1925, and diter from that date until Mares Siy"Go2e, and that he was given rice of iemissal on February 4, 1920, that his services would terme mate on March 31, 1928, He claims that "he was entitled by custom and in Inw to receive at Toast six months! notice, and there~ fore claims $2,400, six months' salary in lieu of notice, less $068, which has been paid him, leaving his claim for wrongful dismissal at the sum of $1,734, 'The defendants, in their statement of defence, HIE was engaged the editorial staff only and remained as such until hig dismissal, They forther say that the notice given was sufficient, that the defend misconducted' himself by into debt and refusing whereby his creditors wera con tinually applying at the newspaper office for payment, That he con tracted debts with advertisers the paper, which caused them to refuse to pay for their advertises ments they had already placed the paper. That he was connect with ether journals when he had promised to devote his whole time to defendant's paper, and that improperly represented himself as editor of the "Shanghai Mercury" and that therefore they were enabled te dismiss him without notice. hig statement: he knew nothi Jconnexion with "Finance and Com-
Imerce" nor "Par Eastern Spectator" Jand puts in a letter of October, do with the Spectator And at later date, vis. January 22, 1925, the plaintiff writes to Mr. Davey, write i of my state-
Davey writes to October 8, 1924, com-1g about Carlton, Ld,,' calling Jon him by instructions of plaintiff for payment of plaintiff's debts and complains also of other persons calling for payment of debts. Davey Jmaintains that plaintiff was never editor or assistant editor, that he himself has always been the editor and has full control of the paper.
Evidence has been given other witnesses as to the annoyance at the offices of the "Shanghai Mercury" caused by various ereditors of the plaintiff repeatedly call ing to obtain payment of their. accounts, Evidence has also been given by various persons who were advertisers in the paper who had refused or delayed to pay for their advertisements until the plaintiff paid them the personal debts that hho owed them. In one cass the plaintiff appears to have partially satisfied the debt he owed an adver-riser by giving him two receipts for the amount he, the advertiser, owed the newspaper, The Plaintif's Age Personal Reeriminations The plaintiff in his evidence states that he i 28 years this month. He appears also to have stated he was 28 years when applying for post in "the "Shanghai Mercury" July, 1924, He further states that he War engaged as assistant editor, and that practically the whole time he war employed he wrote the lead~ ing articles, that "the paper cotirely in his hands," that he altered the policy of' the paper, that the paper "absorbed the whole of my time, 1 lived wi 1 often bad to go without tiffin" and worked 14 hours a day, usually went to office for an hour oF two on Sune days, was responsible for the weekly "Celestial Empire" and solely responsible for the Christmas numbers of 1024 and 1925. He states that Mr, Davey, the managing director of the paper, knew he was connected with other papers and that he never made any complaints about his debts, and he states that Mr, Davey was not editor of the paper and was, generally speaking, fan_ ink competent' person, He admits that he was "on the rocks" when defendants engaged Jum, that he had been condi vventeneed to six months? impr'
the Central Criminal Court, that he owed $4,000 Mengkeng and that he had debt in the Malay States and Shanghai and that he had been frequently. sued for debts in Shanghai and that many are still owing. He further slates thay he has had many offers of employment from other places—Japan and Malay States—but pro-duees no evidence to that effect. He admits that "Truth" wrote calling hi neipled, impecurnturer," and that he was engaged in "a more impudent swindle has rarely been perpetrated" and that he tock ne action against "Truth" en acevunt of these articles.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.