Richard A. Russell then testified that he was a Scottish chartered ae-_ countant and that he was. quite friendly with Plaintif was not partic but he} was steady and his work to the best of his ability. Witness had no personal grudge against him. He had often drawn plaintiff's attention to errors which he had made but he did 0 in a very friendly manner. Plaintiff bore an imaginary grievance] against him for some unknown, reason, Witness described the in-idants of July 4 and assaulting laintif. He further denied that he gone into plaintiffs office and had' thrown a compradore order on his desk. "He admitted taking plaintiff by the sleeve and suggesting that they should have it out in the Private office. Plaintiff refused. He had written a note and enclosed sending it in by the boy. Witness said that plaintif€ was insolent and had told him to "go to—" and that was the probable reason for his summary dismissal. It was why he had complained.
Cross-examined, witness said that was under no written agreement himself and said further that he would not be content with a month's notice: he would consult his solicitor. Plaintiff has been paid his pro ind, about Tls. 5,000. The pro-evident fund was not reduced in this ease. Witness reported him for! coming Into, for being absent and for insolence.
Mr. 5. J. Paterson, director of the defendant company. said that he had full confidence in Mr. Russell. On July 4, Mr. Russell came to his office fand made n complaint of insubordination and insolence against Rangel and witness ordered him to be dismissed. Discipline was a most cazential thing, when one had control of n lot' of men. Witness Tearned discipline in the war.
'Cross-examined, witness said hho knew that, in the army, when a subordinate was dismissed' for any fault, he was always given a chance: to prove his case and, at least, that he had access to his superior. Plaintiff could have come and seen him whenever he liked if he had have behaved in a reasonable manner.
The provident fund was cut only ease of dishonesty. Rangel's was] not cut because of his length of service with the company.
John Borland denied that he] cursed and swore at Mr. Russell at] his treatment of plaintiff and farther! denied that he embraced plaintiff when the latter was leaving. He! admitted shaking hands and saying! that he regretted the matter. Wit ness admitted that he was a friend o€ Mr. Russell but said that he bore inst as friendly an attitude towards had asked plaintiff things occasionally.
Gecrre Dunlop denied calling Mr. Russell a "peanut" and said that he Trad never used the expression his fe.
The Judge—Then you don't know much sbout pean, Cross-examined, witness said that he sometimes made derogatory re-
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.