When the hearing of the case brought by Mr. E. 0. S. Christensen against his former employers, Messrs. Frost, Bland & Ca, for wages alleged to be due, was resumed before Judge P, Grant Jones in H. M. Supreme Court on Monday, June 45, a conflict of law arose which His Lordship declared he would have to attempt to 'Mr. Christensen was dismissed on March 15 last, after his application for permission' to leave on February 29 had been refused. The original claim was for salary due for the whole of March, but as he joined Messrs. H. C, Dixon & Son the day after he had been dismissed, the claim was reduced t0$129, representing two weeks! salary. Mr, K. E Newman appeared for plaintiff, while defendants were represented by Mr. H. A.
Counsel for the defence contended that plaintiff was not entitled to any claim, as he had been guilty of wilful disobedience by arriving late at the office and leaving early following the receipt of a letter of February 29 informing him that strict adherence office hours was required by his employers.
His Lordship said that he was prepared to accept this view of the case, in so far as it suggested wilful disobedience, "It almost appeared as i¢ a trap had been laid for the plaintiff, who had plunged headlong into it. He agreed that plaintif('s dismissal was brought about by his own action. The whole question to be settled was whether plaintiff was entitled salary that was accruing, being employed as he was on a month to month basis, Irregular Hours, While admitting that his client kept irregular hours at the office, Mr. Newman said that this was because defendants kept him in employment while giving him nothing with which to occupy his time. Plaintiffs, he added, were not entitled to dismiss: defendant unless they paid him his Fy up to March 14, Mr. Newman then quoted a number of cases Support of his argument, and said that it would a ridiculous state of affairs if an employer who was paying a°man on a monthly basis kept him in employment up to the 28th of the month, proceeded to work him to such a state that he threw an inkpot, and then discharged him without giving him any part of his wages.
His Lordship expressed the opinion that where an employer was Justified in dismissing one of his employees, hho need not pay him any of the wages: which were accruing to him.
Mr. Newman quoted against this contention, and, quoting further cases, Mr.' Reeks said that where an employee' was dismissed for a justifiable cause, before the ex-Diration of the period for which he had been engaged, he could not claim the wages due for the work which he had already accomplished. His Lordship reserved judgment on the case, stating that he must discover the point of reconciliation between the two parties, which were apparently in conflict with one another.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.