Employee and Employer's Claims} and Counter Claims: Large Sums Involved A business dispute between Mr. P. F. Pomeroy and Mr. H. Quelch, of Messrs, Garner, Quelch & Ca. was the subject of an action begun in H. M. Supreme Court on Wednesday before His Honour Judge Grain.
Plaintiff (Mr. Pom claims G.$1,000, being the price of land sold to defendant by plaintiff, together with interest from April 1, 19%. He further claims Y¥.200, Canadian $1,454.56 and G.32,480,86, moneys paid for and on behalf of defendant, Tls. 5,000 under contract of service, and Tls. 20,000 for wrongful dismissal.
ALLEGATIONS AND Counter Crarm.
The defence contained various allegations disentitling plaintiff to the sums claimed, and there is a counter-claim for Tls. 5,583, by which amount plaintiff is alleged to have overdrawn his account wit) defendant.
Mr. Tycho Wing appeared for plaintiff and Mr. R. G. Macdonald for defendant.
In his opening statement, which occupied the whole of the day, M-. Wing said that plaintiff was an American citizen and defendant was sole proprietor of the business of Garner, Quelch & Ca, Plaintiff first went into defendant's employment in 1914, and the parties seemed to have been on terms of considerable intimacy. Their business relations were apparently of a very loose order: they were as unbusinesslike between one another og business men so often were, and plaintiff carried on under varying terms of employment. The last written agreement was contained in a letter dated October 1, 1920, fixing plaintiff's salary at $400 per month, with 3 per cent. commission on all sales of "Elephant Head" brand wines and spirits and one per cent on all other sales. There was a clause under which the plaintiff's services might be dispensed with at one month's notice, but in the circumstances which later developed plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to reasonable notice. About March, 1920, when defendant was about to leave on a trip to England, the position was one of some difficulty. The firm was un-dargoing a certain amount of pressure from outside. When defendant left Shanghai, he eft written instructions as to ho ntiff should carry on the busin gave hin extremely wide power of attorney, and left him in sole charge. it was understood that on his return plaintiff was to receive a bonus of not less than Tls. 5,000, though defendant said that this was conditional upon the business flourishing in his absence. The business prospered exceedingly during the absence of Mr. Quelch, and if there was such a condition attaching to the bonus, plaintiff contended that it was more than fulfilled. Counsel
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.