SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 239, 3 July 1919, Page 3

SUPREME COURT

MASTER AND SERVANT

DISMISSAL AND A CHEQUE

In the Supreme Court in Chambers yesterday morning, His Honour the Chi-f Jibtice (Sir Robert Stout) heard the coiu of 'I'honuis August Pelherick against the Arcadia Picture Company, Ltd., Duunevirke.

Mr. D. it. Findlay appeared for Hie phuntilV, and Mr. il. F. von Ilaast for the (leieiidant.

The facts wore I bat Pelherick was malinger of the Arcadia. Picture Co, Lid., and on May 7 lie was dismissed by Ihe proprietary and handed a cheque for -U7 10.*., together with o letter iiifoimJ.'ig linn 'that (he eho;|iie was for wajes to dale, and one month's pav in lieu of notice, and that hi* services were not required any longer. Pelherick was risked to hand over to the company all Ms property in his possesion. The cheque was presented at the bank the folloivin" morning, and pluintitr found lhi>t payment hud been stopped. Ho thereupon commenced an ad ion in :ho Supremo I nurt ajfoinst the\le,endant company for the amount of the'cheque, and the "company applied ex parte Id His Honour Mr. Justice (.linpmni, for leav. io defend, which was granted upon.the affidavit of Mrs. Gurr, .secretary to llu- company, m which it was stated that (lie cheque was handed over Io the p'aintilf upon condition that he handed over lo the defendant eonipanv in good order an-i conditinu all its property in his control the defend «•.-,= duly filed, statinthai: the eheoue w»? ,C 2 15s. for wage* .to Alay , and the balance (,-rataitv given Io llmi upnn that condilion (relurnin» proiK H ''\ J v, ' i £' l ''o'failed (o earn- out. the plum tiff therefore moved veslcrdav i? if t i i '« (l< i n"' °!''l or lo (lt,f(, "' (l on the g.ound that the defence set up bv *l, e company was no real defence to the aelinn.

l if 7i ] ' en """ anrtimeiir, His Honour held (hut tho ex parte j eaV c had been .sxnnted by mi ITnnour Mr. Justice Chan, man on a statement which was not «,r----u T h n (,cf^l 1 compnnv had set "I' tlwt the eheoue was paid upon n ooudi ion (lint had not wen oWsr.Ho 7 Honour. The Idler showed that I lie chnqiip was not handed (o the plaintiff upon any condition, but merelv diroctin" certain things to be done by'the plain" t It. If the letter had been disclosed it wild hove shown that (lie statement made in the afhdavit i„ respect lo the application was incorrect. A defence had '"■or, Ir.e, which set up that tho.grenter P-in of the amount nf the cheque, was given -is a gratuity. This statement was incorrect, bocause there was nothiV "bout a gratuity in the letter, and the money was giv,.,, to (ho plaintiff j„ lieu of' not.ee as set-out in tho letter. I here was nothing in (),<■ defence which hid been filed «llcgii W vhot the plaintiff Had kept or damaged any property of the tympany, nor had any counter-claim been li.'vl claiming damages. His Honour decided that the order should be set aside, with .£2 2s. cosNand if the defendant company wished to r=.se the question!? set up thev must give Mounty tor the amount claimed and