In the United States Court for China, on Tuesday Judge C. 8S. Leéyingier gave a decision in the ease of Carl Fick v. the American Commercial & Industria] Ca., Ld. In the course of his judgment, his Honour said From May, 1917, unti] March, 1923, plaintiff was employed by defendant and its predecessor, and sues to recover certain sums alleged to be due for_ passage money, salary and general balance. The answer is a general denial. 2
It is conceded that plaintiff did not take his leave during 1922, but was sent, instead, to Siberia to take charge of defen-dani's agencies there and the contention appears to be that plaintiff. waived his right to leave. We do not think, however that a fair construction of the letter restricts plaintiff's privilege to the year 1922.
The letter does not, state, and we do not think it can be fairly construed to mean, that plaintiff was required to take his leave during 1922 or not at all. Nor do we find any satisfactory evidence of a waiver by plaintiff of this privilege. In fact, waiver is not pleaded. In this letter of March 14, 1923, he expressly renews his claim for leave and while there is some evidence—of doubtful admissibility—as to an alleged settlement between the parties, there is nothing which would justify a finding that the leave privilege was actually waived.
It is accordingly considered and adjudged that plaintiff have: and recover from defendant:—(1) the sum of Y. 443.13, together with costs; (2) the further sum of Tls. 1,314 to paid upon plaintiff's announcement of his readiness to take passage for Denmark in accordance with the agreement; (3) the further sum of Y. 2,600 to he paid upon defendant's return to Harbin from Denmark; (4) and that defendant assign to plaintiff the latter's entire interest to the extent of Y. 1,000 in the judgment. recovered by fendant against Gauchmann.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.