A JUDICIOUS BLEND.

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 202, 26 August 1899, Page 1 (Supplement)

A JUDICIOUS BLEND.

EDIFYING CASE.

An action for wrongful dismissal which should interest Australians as throAving a curious light on the subtleties of the retail Avine trade in England came up recently before Mr Justice Ridley and a special jury. The plaintiff was Mr Edwin Wodhams, a Avine merchant's manager, and the defendants his late employers Joseph Fredk. Timms and Co. (Limited).

It appeared that the plaintiff was formerly in the employ of Messrs Cater, Stoffel, and Fortt, Avine merchants, of Bath, and in July, 1898, he ansAvered an advertisement for a Avine merchant's manager, and came into communication A\-ith Mr Timms, AA-ho formerly carried on the defendant company's business. In. the result he Avas engaged at a salary of £300 a year and some extras. Plaintiff's case was that as soon as he entered upon his duties he found that the business carried on by Mr Timms Avas of a fraudulent nature, Avines and spirits being supplied AA-hich Avere vvrongly described. Hoavever, as he was a married. man with three children, he said he could not afford to throw up his situation, so he continued in it, although he put himself into communication with his late employer and others Avith a vieAv of obtaining an appointment else-

where. In January of this year the defendants, a- small limited company, of which Mr Fredk. Charles Challoner was the managing director, purchased the business of Mr Timms, who was retiring on accotmt of failing health. He (the plaintiff), being taken over with the business, continued to conduct it as before. A complaint being made as to wrongly described spirits, the defendants said that the misdescribed whisky had been supplied by the plaintiff in spite of stringentinstructions from them that in future no mis-described wines and spirits were to be supplied. Upon this explanation and an apology being offered the prosecution was withdrawn. The next step was that the defendants discharged the plaintiff on the ground that he had disobeyed their order to make a scapegoat of him and to justify their position to Messrs Jameson. The defence was an emphatic denial of plaintiff's statements, and Mr Challoner said that as soon as his suspicions' were aroused as to the way in which the plaintiff conducted the business he gave him express instructions that no misdescribed wines and spirits should be supplied in future.

Mr Justice Ridley, in summing up, said it was the first time that he had heard anybody say in a Court of Justice that he was obliged to continue to carry on a fraud for the sake of his wife and children. Plaintiff's case, however, was, "I knew I was fraudulent, but I wanted £300 a year." Plaintiff had deliberately taken up an employment which he knew to be fraudulent and had not the pluck or honesty to give it up. Plaintiff had to make an admission of that sort, but Mr Challoner had to make no admission.

The jury, after deliberating for a short Avhile, returned a verdict for the plaintiff with £200 damages.