BARONET AND BUTLER

Southland Times, Issue 21100, 4 June 1930, Page 11

BARONET AND BUTLER

INCIDENT AT DINNER TABLE. SOUP AND IMPERTINENCE. 4 ■ Sir Robert Moucrieffe, Bart., who recently celebrated his golden wedding, was the defendant in an action at West London County Court a few weeks ago. He was sued by James Hugh Mitchell, for £6 11/as wages due in lieu of notice. ■Mitchell said that Sir Robert, Lady Moncreiffe, and her niece were at dinner at their house in Eaton Square, and he was serving the soup as the footman was out. “Sir Robert,” he continued, “said to me, ‘What is the soup?’ and I answered ‘Clear soup.’ He turned round on me for not calling him ‘Sir Robert’ before I had time to address him by his title.” Sir Robert threatened to kick him, and refused to pay him beyond that day. He was engaged at £9O. a year wages, with 3/6 a week for laundry expenses. The solicitor for Sir Robert: Did you not turn to Sir Robert and say, “You are a perfect pig?”—No. Did you not go down the table and say to Lady Moncreiffe, “you are a perfect pig?” No I may have said that since my engagement, I had been treated as a pig.

It was stated that Mitchell was in the employ of Sir Robert for 47 days, and was paid 13/8 more than was due to him.

Sir Robert Moncreiffe said that Mitchell showed no respect to him at the dinner table and never addressed him as “Sir Robert” or Lady Moncreiffe as “My Lady? “I asked him what soup it was, thick or clear,” said Sir Robert, “and he curtly said, ‘Clear soup,’ came up to me and shouted ‘You are a pig.’ I said, ‘Get out of this room or I will kick you out.’ To Lady Moncreiffe he said, ‘You are a perfect pig; I hat is what you are, a perfect pig.’ “I have never had so impertinent a servant. I told him to leave the room and go next morning. I said to him that if he had been' educated in a gentleman’s house he would know how to address a gentleman.”

Mitchell: I have been with the nobility and royalty. I have been six years in one place, and have never been dismissed for impertinence,

Judge Hargraves said that on Mitchell’s own evidence ho had been very impertinent, and there would be judgment for Sir Robert.