Army Barber Losses His Case Judgment was entered for the defendants by Mr. C. H. Haines, acting Assistant Judge, in Supreme Court, in the case of Mohammed Hussain v. Khair Mohammed Bros. an action in which plaintiff, atone time a. barber to "A" Ca,, The Ist Battalion The East Lancashire Regt., claimed 3505 as the amount on "food-money", a return fare to Tientsin, for unpaid salary, and for damages due to wrongful dismissal, Mr, K. E, Newman acted on behalf of the "plaintiff, while—defendants? counsel was Mr. Lil. A. Reeks, Giving judgment, Lordship said that the evidence was rather confusing, but it seemed that he had to decide' whether the plaintiff had been employed by the defendants not. The only evidence in support of this was the plaintiff's, and this was contradicted by the company's manager and also by one of the plaintiffs own witnesses. From the evidence given, His Lordship had no doubt but that plaintiff! had been employed by a sub-contractor. The sub-contractor, for a cert. " amount ne, apparently, was in charge of them, In regard to the claim for ful dismissal, there was no to show that plaintiff? had be at the time of a disease, This claim,.t90, therefore failed. Judgment. was awarded to defendants with costs.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.