RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 444, 2 January 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Thursday, Dec. 31. Bullen v. Klein.—This was a claim by E. H. Bullen, of Westport, against J. P. Klein, Hokitika, for damages sustained by the summary termination of his engagement as agent for tbo ■ Weekly Observer and Leader. The claimincluded the loss of three months' profit on the sale of the papers, at £1 is per week- -£l6 16s, and losses other .vise sustained amounting to £3l 10s. Mr Tyler appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Pitt for the defendant. The only witnesses examined wore the plaintiff, Charles Cohen, and Henry Smart, who, as experts called by the plaintiff, proved the practice of the trade as to notice to be given to agents. The Magistrate, in giving his decision, said that an agent might or migbt not be entitled to notice, according to the particular relation he held to his employer. There were all sorts of relationships contained in the range between pure servant and pure agent, and tbere might be many cases in which it would be difficult to decide. In the present case he thought the plaintiff was so far in the employ of the defendant tbat be was entitled to notice. He did not think, however, that the case was so strong as one of a similar character which was recently heard by Court. But at the same time the dismissal was wrongful and sudden ; and but for the plaintiff's own act in telegraphing to Hokitika, he might have been for some time without any knowledge of the fact. The evidence in tbe case as to custom was not so clear as in the last, but in that case the plaintiff sued for one month, and the evidence supported his claim. In this case he did not think there was anything strong enough to justify more than a month being given, but he thought the plaintiff was entitled to that notice, and, giving a verdict simply for the amount of profits claimed, viz., at the rate of £1 4s a-week, judgment would be for £4< 16s, with costs on the lower scale, and costs of an adjournment. The other items wese charges which could not, upon any principle of law or equity, be sustained. Supposing he had received formal notice of a month, he would not have been entitled to have charged them, and they must be disallowed.