SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 10536, 23 December 1899, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS AT NISI PRIUS. Friday, December 22. ' (Before his Honour Mr Justice Denniston.) The Court re-opened at 10 a.m. O'BRIEN \L ATKINSON. The hearing of Wns case, which was an action for the recovery of £250 for wrongful dismissal by the defendant of the plaintiffs son, was resumed. Mr Stringer fbr the plaintiff; Mr Joynt for the defendant. The defendant was examined at some length by Mr Joynt, and was cross-examined by Mr Stringer. Thisclosed the case for the defence. Mr Stringer re-called P. C. O'Brien with reference to certain matters mentioned in the evidence of the defendant. The -rebutting case for the plaintiff was then opened by Mr Stringer, who called evidence. Mr Joynt then addressed his Honour for the defendant- and asked for leave to amend the statement of defence, by omitting words with reference to the taking by O'Brien of fees for work performed by the "defendant or his pupils, and not accounting for the same, and confirming the .allegation as to fees received by O'Brien himself for work done by him, and not accounted for to the defendant. Mr Stringer objected to the amendment being made. His Honour allowed the amendment asked for by Mr Joynt, but took a note of Mr Stringer's objection. Mr Joynt went on to address his Honour, and cited several cases on the question of the difference between apprentices and pupils, and the power of dismissal in the case of the latter. . Mr Stringer replied urging that tbe law was that the employer Could not dismiss a pupil except he could show that the retention of the pupil might be. dangerous to his business, or that the pupil was guilty of habitual dishonesty. Several cases in support were cited by learned counsel. His Honour took time to consider the various cases cited, and postponed giving judgment. The Court then rose.