RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT,

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XI, Issue 49, 21 February 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT,

[Before L. Broad, E-q., R. M ] _____ .vick. .. ITauuellk. Action to tec .ver £100 damngesfor alleeed wrongful dismissal. fa Mr Pitt appeared for tbe plaintiff, and Mr Actox Adams for the d^fend.nt. Thomas Hopper Hustffiok ; I ain a pharom-

<eutic**l ehemi.r,. a_nd have been so for 2. • ears pa.t in En .land, Australia, and New J. -aland. I received when nt Sa'-dridge the letter now p-o^uced f oin Felt-n, Grimw-uio, aid Co. o' Melbourne, cilering me i-n beh»lf <f Dr Furrelle the manarement of ihe chemist's shop in Trafa'gar-stnet at the rate of £4 p r week, hou*e room, and two und a half per cent on the takings, deducting w ges mid rent. I ace.n'ed hy telegram. On my a*riv«l here the flr-t thing Dr I Turre le said was that he .should e.pect six months notice from me before leaving On Ihe 17th of November, 1874, we had a talk over the terras upon which I was to remain, and after a long discussi'-n ii was mutually i-gr.ed that I was to receive two months notice in case of dismissal. Dr Farrelle retusd to give me a written agreement. The perc?nta_e on th. takings was usu-lly p <id to me monthly. The Hvera.e av>>s a\ out £2 per month. On t'-e 4th of this month Dr Farrelle calle 1 and toll me that he meant to work tho business on more economical principles, an . bhould not n quire my services any more. I .ail I should require r.s long a notice as he could give me. Ou the following morning Mr Acton Adams called, and ten lered nr- a week's wages, and another week's instead of notire, and sail I was to leave the shop with my wife and family at one 0 . I consulted my solicitor, who wrote to Mr Acton Adams, off-ring to quit on certain terms. In reply a letter was received stating that a week's wHges in advance would be paid, and that if I went out qu'etly my family wou'd not be inconveniencd. The letter a'so stated that Dr Fiirrolle had good re .son for dispensing with my services. I had never heard anything ot this either from :he defendant or big i-olicitor. C oss-cxamined : I understood from the Melbourne agent, thit my wagfs were to commence on arrival. Thev have been paid weekly ever Bince. I wa-t forbidden to pay mvself and the shop servauts out of the takings, but they were to b. pad by cheque. This l„d to some confusion, and f-r the last six months I made the j.aymetits out of the takings. I rendered monthly accounts, and Dr Farrelle rame for the caah at irregular int-rvals. When Mr Acton Ad«ms CAme to me I said I should take the commission nnd a week's wages out of the cash in hand. When fist I came he said he was not prepared to give me ay notice. We never had any wri'.ten atrretment. I distinctly assert i hit on Nov. 17, 1874 Dr Farrelle. agreed to a two montbs notice. When Dr Farrelle oame to m* on 4th inst , I said I should require as lorg a notice as be could givt me Laier in the day I asked him what noi>ce he would give me, and he s«id none, but he would pay me ins'ead. Dr Farrelle has complained of my con luet in the shop. I recollect the doctor and M'Coukey comhig late one night. I do not r.raember Dr Farrelle finding fault with me for not serving M'Conkey. lie has not often complained of my not servim. people he had sent late at m.ht. Some time ago Dr Farrelle was thinking of disposing of the business to Kempthorne and Prosser, of Dunedin, and Mr Irvine, tl.eir traveller, went round with me and took stock. I did not •leprechte the v-«lue to him. In one instance Irvine .aid the price of certain combs should be j 12a a dozen, and I looked at the ticket and said the price was less. I knew that Kemp hthorne and Prosser were thinking ol purchasing the luainess nnd setting me up in it. I refused to te 1 Dr Farrelle the remit of the s'ook taking, as it was contrary to etiquette for him to ask me. Dr Farr< lie asked me previously not t. injure the business while he was trying to dispose of it.

I.o' examine i : When Dr Farrelle asked Irvine tor information a. lo the valuation, he replied lhat the information wns his employers sole property, and he could not give it without their permi.Bion. I knew what the nmonnt was from being present when the sheets were added up. It was immediately lifter Irvine had rdused that Dr Fanvlle as'^ed me. and I refused to tell him on the ground ihit I had no right lo reveal it. It was n<> business of mine to ascertain the valuation.

At this at.ge of the proceeding*), His WORSHIP state I that it appeared to him useless to go o a with the case, hs. if it had been a yearly hiring, »8 alleged by the plaintiff, then, being iu effect a parol agreement between tbe plaintiff and defendant's agent, in Melbourne, madi in August, it w-.s a contract; for hiring net to be performed within the year, as tbe servica was not to begin, or the wages to be paid, until p'aintift _ arrival in * elson. and, in fact, be began service on tbe 7tb of September, anl so the case came within the operation of the Statute of Frauds. With regard t. the agreement to give two months notice, that could not be proved, as it was denied by the defendant, nud if the hiring waa a weekly one. the plaintiff had a right to di .mi. s at a %veek.s notice. Mr 1 .rr said there were certa'n p .ints of law raised, which, it appeared to him, would admit of argument, and lie should thetcfore ask for an adjournment to cn.ble hira to look int.. tiie matter: The ea.e was adjourned accordingly. M'Gbath v. Nicholson. Clfsim for £4* \Qa for wages. Mr Pitt appeared for the plaintiff, nnd Mr Henry Adams f r defendant, wbo had paid £3 2s into Court, stating that to be the amount due, Hi. V*" or* hip after bearing evidence on both sides a>\d counsels' addrcsse 0 , pave judgment far the amount pail into Court, with £ I Is costs. JONKB V SCOTT. Claim to recover £73 ss. This was an action .rising out of a tub-contract taken bv tbe plaintiff on the railway works. Mr Fell ■ipp.ared lor rhe plaintiff and Mr Pitt /or the d.li-ndant. The case was one involving figures and meneurements to a large extent, and possessing little interest for the public. It was not conc'uded when we went lo press