BREACH OF AGREEMENT.

Taranaki Daily News, 12 March 1918, Page 5

BREACH OF AGREEMENT.

A STRATFORD CASE. The hearing of a claim for breach of agreement, which had been commenced at Stratford on Friday, March 1, was continued at the New Plymouth Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr. A. Crooke,' S.M. The claim was by C. H. Fox (Mr. Coleman, Stratford) for £IOO against Fred Foley (Mr. A. H. Johnstone) picture manager, for breach of contract, or, in the alternative, for compensation through plaintiff's term as musician to defendant being terminated by the latter selling out his business to a company. Lengthy evidence was given yesterday, which went to bliow that plaintiff, in addition to being wrongfully dismissed, had been unfairly treated by defendant, in that, as a professional musician, he had been required to play on a very inferior piano, while there was in the hall at the same time an almost new grand piano; that he had asked the defendant to have the piano tuned, and could get no satisfaction. Ultimately plaintiff had on three occasions in one week spoken publicly to the audiences in the picture theatre, complaining of the state of the piano on which he had to play, and on one occasion had accused defendant of being "too mean" to pay for the tuning j of the instrument. Evidence was also given as to the strained relations between plaintiil and defendant. For the defence it wai claimed that as the agreement with Fox was for the term of Foley's lease of the picture theatre (an unnamed period in the agreement), and that as the final twelve months of that lease was disposed of to the new picture company with Fox's knowledge, and that Fox had actually contracted with the new company to play for them before his engagement with Foley had expired, and that the contract was made with the assent of Foley, there was, therefore, no breach of agreement. It was further contended that plaintiff's conduct in announcing his grievances against his employer publicly to the audiences in the theatre was in Itself a sufficient cause for his dismissal, if there was a dismissal. Evidence was given by defendant, in which he stated that he had done what he could to assist Fox to get known, and bo assist him in his profession in Stratford. In cross-examination by Mr. Coleman, he said he had no knowledge of plaintiff's complaints about the piano being out of tune until he heard him state them publicly to the audience in the theatre. Thomas Lonergan also gave evidence as to being in the theatre on one occasion when Fox came in, played a few notes on the piano, and then stood up and, to the audience, acused Foley of refusing to < have the piano tuned, and said he was "too mean to pay for it." Witness did not think that anyone in the audience would be .aware of any defect in the piano. He could not understand what Mr. Fox had meant in his remarks to the audience. They seemed most peculiar. Counsel addressed the bench, and cited authorities in support of their contentions as to the reading of the agreement and tlie term of employment intended therein. Mr. Johnstone also contended that if there had been a dismissal defendant had justifiable provocation. His Worship reserved his decision.