There remained to consider the question of custom. Custom be (a) general or (b) particular. General custom is one that prevails throughout a country and becomes the law in such country Particular custom is one that prevails in a city, like Shanghai, and its existence must be determined by proof just like other facts unless such particular or local custom haa ison to the dignity of law. Does there e-ist in. Shanghai sucht custom? There has been no testi-many en any such local custom except that "counsel for plaiitift offered in evidence a printed noric issued by the S.°M. P. on "Employ. ment of Indian Police Watchmen,' dated May 1, 1928, and argued that this printed circular was evidence of local custom.
There can be no question that Indian watchmen are entitled toa month's wage. The question, therefore, is whether plaintiff and hi assignees were Indian police watehmen. Capt. Kennedy testified "these rules apply when the watchmen are employed as 'Indian police' and not otherwise," Questioned by the Court, he stated that the watchmen employed by the Dollar Ca. were not Indian police watchmen for the sasan that they were not supervised by the S. M. P. When supervised by the S. M. P., the employer undertakes and does pay to the P. the sum of $5 per month in consideration of such supervision by the police, When not supervised by the S. M. P., the watchmen are not considered {ndian police watenmen, With this direct testimony fon the question, the Commissioner said he must come to the conclusion that plaintiff and his assignees were not Indian police watehmen ai not being such, plaintiffs exhibi could not be held to apply in thi case, Having come to this conclusion, it must follow that pi tif's exhibit was insufficient to prove local custom, Employment Not Necessarily for a Month He now came to the final plea of plaintiff's counsel, that he should take judicial notice of the local customs of Shanghai, An exami tion of authorities on this point disclosed that, asa general rule, judicial notice, as applied to usages and customs, would be taken ashen, such custom had become general t> sufficient extent to be a matte of judicial knowledge, Spe custom, that fs, limited to a particular locality or business, would not. be taken judicial notice of generally. He had to come to the con clusion that he could not take Judicial notice of the claim that there was a general custom in Shanghai to the effect that a watch~ man or other similar employes, whose wages were fixed monthly basis was necessarily employed for the term of one month swith the right to have notice for a similar period from his employer.
Accordingly, it would be order! and adjudged that plaintiff should have judgment against defendants for wages for the actual number ut days employed in the month of July, vit, 17 days. As the evidence showed "that these wages were tendered by defendant at the time of the dismissal of the watchmen, there would be no interest and no costs allowed.
Mr. 8. A, Moss appeared for plainti and Mr. C.P, Holeomb
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.