IN BANCO.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 589, 18 August 1909, Page 9

IN BANCO.

';;/. -AN INTKRKgTIkG CASE.- : Orloie Mr. Justice Cooper yesterday afteriKi-.-.::, ■i.'ie case of Joseph ,-Wo'olfc, ' tailor' 3 siiii'U.-: , : (i-ppc-lkint), versus .Aaron L'amnol and (.■'H;r;,'e \\m. Gray, trading as the 'Wholesale ■SYoi/iWn C 9., ami- Flfminsj-Rosa, -heco'untant aii-'i." r.vc'iv-er in the estate ef tti» «orap»ny (n.sjxjiKtentß), came on for htariDs. ■ . ■'■"Sir.: Johnston appsared en bebalf. ef the appellant,' and~Mr.' L»vi' for Uii r -'re*poiidents. : -Tlie tacts a3 set out were that respondents engagecl appellant, .who s .\vas at,the. timo residing in Sydney; at a , salary, and wit.li a share of the profits. .Owing to ment ■ between the, partners, 'theV. Court, ordered that the..partnershipi should I>o ilisSubsequently the receiver disposed of appellant's'services. Appellant 'then' sued (respondents in tho Magistrate's Court'for

£161, being balance, alleged to bo duo on a year's contract. Mr., Ruldell, S.JI., upheld tho respondents' contention tli.it appellant had been engaged on a weekly liiring. l ? roni this decision, an. appeal jvas now brought. ' •'During'tlip- conrtn of argument, Mr. Johnston submitted that tho governing principle was, first of all, that there must exist between master'and servant a certain amount, of -'conficlcnco,:' and, secondly, that ' English law we s Bcnarous to the- servant, andwnMld allow him a good length of service.'- if thero was no very distinct custom in tho' trade or ovidonco to show that ho wsi3 not entitled to it. •,-.'.■ ' ■■'■"■ ;.His 'Honour'm'phtiqnccl that., there was another point ill addition to those—as to whether tho hiring, was'weekly .or yearly. What had also to bb considered was whether the appellant wa3 hired for no definite- period and on a weekly wage, but was given ucii a position that bo could not be dismissed 'on a .week's notice.' The aniourit of'liotico which'h'jjd to-be given depended to a groat extent on the position which, was held. Not lo«ii ago it had been established before him in.Nelson that a head 'milliner waa entitled to threo mouths' notice. Mr. ; LuviV Tho. \position , .which is'.usually roNtcd to is that of editor of a -newspaper; His Honour:•ln England an editor is entitled .to six montlis' notice. ' r ■ • Mr. Lovi pointed out in the course of further discussion that in Now Zealand the ■practice, of. hiring domestic by -fclis year was'now'becoming prevalent. _ '-. ■■ ■ . His Honour: Evon if a. domestic servant is hired by tho, w'eok in England, , she is entitled to one .mouthy notice. ... . .'ln reply "to tho arguments adduced on behalf of appcllant.Mr. Layi .quoted authori-ties-with' a view .of showing that appel'ant was hired by tho week, and not by contract for.a year. .- • . ■'~ ■ ; '...'.' ■ "His Honour said the case was important enough to warrant birn in giving a .written judgment. His present impression was t'.iat the case in ""any event would havo to go back, to the..magistrate on either one ir other of .the alternative branches which ■» had suggested. ■As ho wished to- review somo of the authorities, he would take time to consider his 'judgment. - - ".' ;