MASTER V. SERVANT.

Gisborne Times, Volume VII, Issue 423, 23 May 1902, Page 3

MASTER V. SERVANT.

A QUESTION OF NOTICE

At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday before Mr Barton, S.M., Donald Gordon sued IA J. Shelton for £45, being £6 for two"weeks’ wages, and £39 for three months’ wages in lieu of notice. The defendant set up a counter claim for moneys received by plaintiff amounting to £l4 9s 9d, The counter claim was admitted. Mr R, N.. Jones appeared for plaintiff, and Mr DeLautour for defendant.

Mr Jones, in opening the case, said that the claim arose out of a written agreement by which the plaintiff was to receive three months’ notice in writing of the termination of the engagement, that he was dismissed without receiving such notice, and was therefore entitled to three months’ wages. The*plaintiff gave evidence that- lie had been engaged from Ist July, 1901, to run a. butchery business for Mr Shelton, the latter taking over his plant; that from time to time Mr

Slielton threatened to discontinue the business, which he eventually did on the 16th January last. Alter that he (plaintiff) was still employed in the collecting of accounts, and doing odd jobs at the freezing works. Shortly' before the first of March he was sent over to the freezing works, and Mr J. R. Jones, the manager, told him he could only give him 7s a day. On being so informed he ce turned to Mr Shelton, who said that lie would make up the difference. On the first of March he had a conversation with Mr Shelton, when he was told that his services were dispensed with. He then caused a letter to be written to Mr Shelton, and after waiting a few days went to work as butcher at the Sheepfarmers’ Freezing Company's ivorks. He had there earned £39 8s in two months, more than he would have earned in the three months if he had stayed on with Mr Shelton. He nad asked Mr Shelton to give him 12 nonths in which to pay off the counter claim, but Mr Shelton refused to' allow more than six months. He (plaintiff) denied that he had waived his right to written notice or that he had ceased to work on the 20th February, the date of the last payment Mr DeLautour said that the defence was that the plaintiff had asked that the business be kept running, so that it could be made to pay ; that he had waived his right to written notice, and had accepted verbal notice which would have expired on the 20th March if the plaintiff had continued to work for defendant ; that the business having ceased, plaintiff’s appointment also ceased, as there was no warranty to keep the business going, and assuming there had been a wrongful dismissal plaintiff could claim no damages, as he nad already earned more than the salary would have been. Mr J. R. Jones gave evidence as to plaintiff’s "employment and work at the freezing works. F. J. Shelton, defendant, stated that hi September he had told plaintiff that the butchery would have to be stopped. Mr Gordon asked him to give the’ business a show, and he would make it pay. Each month, after witness had received the statement of accounts, he desired to close the butchery. hut plaintiff wished still further opportunity to make the business pay. On December 20 he decided that' the business should stop, and gave orders that no more stock' should be killed. Mr Gordon asked lor a few weeks further, but on January 16 witness finally decided that the business should lie lie closed. He had asked plaintiff to take the butchery over on the same terms as witness had purchased it from him, but plaintiff said that he was unable to do so. From January 16 to February 19 plaintiff was employed by witness collecting accounts for a few days, and working at the freezing works. On February 19th or -oth, the contract for the purchase of the works hv the new company was signed dating hack to the 13th. The last date on which plaintiff brought in any money collected by him was February i.i y Witness told plaintiff that he supposed that he did not want any further notice, as the business had been a bad, losing one all through. Ihe plaintiff said, “ I suppose so ” and asked about the account outstanding, which was in the statement of defence as* a counter claim. plaint f„,fw for twelve months to pay witness, but defendant declined to give tins as unreasonable, offering to aHow three months for the payment of the ac count. Plaintiff then said he could not pay the money in the . time, and -said he would raise the question of notice. Witness said be bad asked for no favors, and as notice had been given on December 20, he would find liim work till March 20. Defendant had asked Mr Jones to give plaintiff employment, as he had promised to see .that he got paid. He undersTppd plaintiff did not ciirttinub' working at the works, but witness had told him that he would make up the difference 11 lie tween 7 s and 10s. In cross-examination witness said he was sure that the conversation had taken-place on the 14th February, and not;, on the Ist of March. He had not dismissed Qordoa, but. thought ho latter/had sons or the (tewtos

' works. Counsel then addressed the Court on the facts and the law, and at 5 p.m. Hie Worship reserved his decision^