On this evidence, I find that the plaintiff was employed e" an account fant, Arst by Mayer, and then by the company, and again by Mayer, at a salary of $200 per mensem. That! amount has admittedly been paid for Suly and August; apart from the admission, an accord and salistaction made by a stranger on behalf of the defendant and adopted by the plant. {tis good defence. (Hirachand Punamehand v. Temple, 1911, 2 KB. 320), Tf ko was wrongfully dismissed iby Howell on August 15, as to which T express no oplalon, he apparently Suffered litle or no' damage, as he! eas taken on by Mayer, against whom This remedy, if any, les for his Seplember salary and a month's salary Tien of nollce, As he himself ad-court, did not contest the case,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.