APPEAL COURT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXIX, Issue 8289, 17 November 1906, Page 5

APPEAL COURT.

A MASTER-TON CASE. , The Chief Justice sat, yesterday morning, 'to bear an appeal from the deoision of Mr James, S.M., in a case in whioh 7. S. Donaldson sued H. E. Andrews for the sum of £7B, says the Evening Post. Donaldson was apprenticed to respondent, to learn tue profession of i dentist, but was dismissed because hj« , was consumptive. Mr James dismissed tbe case, and Donaldson now , appealed. Mr Chapman appeared for appellant, and Mr Boilings for respondent. Mr Chapman, in opening the case for tbe appellant, stated that appellant was tuberculous when the -tides were entered into, and **■ Uy Mr Andrews objeoted to his fina. , oe j n the surgery on tbe preaeu a j. j^ B waß tuberculous and, ground. dismissed him. Counsel tfaerexonr Sat MrAnclrews oaght to contended U - iaok the prem ium, or have handed s at he Wflß Qot jaaU . part of it, and to. an appreut } oe on fled in dism.ssmg , he faot of the , su ° h ■1 « r " an , d - thßfc ption did not plaintiff bavingJnoDßUD. dialDißßirjg justify Mr Andrews in ~„„ . him. Counsel urged that * -jsease" tion was not an "infections u t e alth as definol by the Public i. Act. Mr Hollings stated that tubercu " losis was speolfioally declared by* tbe Governor to be an infections disease. Mr Chapman argued that under (be terms of the Act tbe Uuvernor had no power to declare tubercu- - losis tn be an infectious disease. It was quite different from tbe class of disease contemplated by the Act, which was concerned with dangeroas diseases liable to spread. His Honour: Some people say that tuoerculosis is as dangerous as bubonic plagnp. Mr Chapman: Influenza is probably responsible for more deaths in New Zealand than typhoid fever. For the respondent, Mr Hollings argued that tne covenant on the part of Mr Andrews was to leaob for three year? ending January, 19U4, and that that contract was fulfilled so far bm the respondent was concerned, although appellant was absent at a sanatorium by bis doctor's orders during part of tbe time. Counsel also contended that under the factories Act appellant would have been prohibited from working iu the respondent's premises, us he was suffering from an infectious disease. His Honour held that there was no breach of the contract. During tbe term of the contract the appellant was not ready to be taught, and therefore the respondent oonld not teaoh him. The deoision of the Magistrate must be upheld, ana the appeal dismissed. His Honour added that it was a bard case for the appellant, and it would have been a proper thing for the em* rloyer to have given Mr Donaldson some allowance. The appeal would with £1 4s costs.