DISTRICT COURT

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8295, 25 September 1903, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT

THIS DAY. (Before his Honor Judge Ward.) SANDERSON v. JOHN BULLKII) & CO. At. the District Court the civil e;ise, Saunderson v. JOIIII Bulle.id_ and Co., was heard ; claim £lB5. 111 this case the plaintiff brought an action for wrongful diismissal, the particulars of demand bt ing hei-o set forth—(l) That the plaintiff enWrul dofendants' service in chargo of their fuuoy goods and haberdashery departments on tin, 3.Bth February. 1902. at a salary calculated at- £5 pfcr week, and, in juldition,. a lmm« of £25 011 returns for the year, making £285 in all, such bonus to be paid only if tho plaintiff brought the returns up to £SOOO. (2) Plaintiff duly .served defendant, and received payment of (salary and bonus ub aforesaid for one year, or about tlio 18th February, i 903, entered on another year's service and continued to serve defendant as aforesaid until wrongfully dismissed by him on 30th July, 1903. (3) Plaintiff claims for salary earned and damages for wrongful dismissal thosum of £lB5, being salary from 20th July, 1903, to <l;itd, of dismissal, and damages 111 lieu of wagw and bonus from then to 18th February, 1904.

The statement of dofenoo was as follows: (1) That the plaintiff was engag«l as a weekly (servant, at a salary of £5 per week, and that he was to receive a bonus only at the end of each year ho was in defendant'* employ, and that he was not engaged from year to year, and that the engagement could be put an end to by either party on one week's notice. (2) Tluit on or about the 20th July, 1903, the plaintiff luul t<> absent himself from business on account of Ilia illness and sent for defendant to como and see him. The defendant Rent one of his employees, G. N. Gardiner, to see tlie plaintiff, when he was told that the illnew was likely to be. of considerable duration and the plaintiff was prepared to resign his appointment. '.Die defendant accepted tl» resignation and offered to settle matters with tile plaintiff to date. The plaintiff then repudiated his resignation and, in ease that it should be deemed that he had not resigned, and as a matter of precaution, on 30th July, 1903, defendant dismissed lint plaintiff. (3) The defendant claimed tliat lk> was justified in dismissing file plaintiff on the following grounds—(a) That the plaintiff was suffering from a chronic complaint and had been absent, on account of illneso, on two occasions previously to the 20tli July, 1303, and that, on or about tliat date, on account of his illness, Jio was incapacitated from performing his duties and expressed'his intention of undergoing an operation, which would liave rank-rod him incapable of performing and carrying out his duties for several months at least, lb) The defendant was largely indebted in Dunedin and Oamaru and liad entered into negotiations to compromise with his Duucdin creditors. ■He was served with summonses by the bailiff of the Magistrate's Court, Oamaru, during business hours, and this position was incompatible with the performance of liis duties and calculated to injure the business of the defendant go long as tlio plaintiff remained in his employ, (c) The plaintiff, as manager of the fancy mid haberdashery department, liad solo charge' of the buying in that department. Tliat on many occasions he was warned by tlio defendant tliat ho was buying excessively and he undertook to keep the stock down. That he failed to do this, and had continued to buy to an amount altogether out of protortion to the business of his department, and that in so doing he did not exerciiie reasonable skill and diligenco. (d) Tim defendant lias paid into Court tlio sum of £lO and costs in satisfaction of the claim fur wages and denies any liability for damages. Mr. Crawford appeared for plaintiff nnd Mr Lee for defendant.

The following juty wan unipannelM Messrs Francis Scoon (foreman), Allan, Stuart, Clarke, Edward Milligan, and Jama U. France.

Mr Crawford asked for and' was granted leave to amend the claim by reducing it by £lO, the amount paid into Court, and £5, added by clerical error. The amount claimed was, therefore, £l7O. Annie Saundcrson, wife of tho plaintiff, was the first witness called by tho plaintiff's solicitor. Witness remembered plaintiff) illness in July. His firet absence from business on tliat account was Tuesday. 2M July. Witness saw defendant on Saturday of that week, when Mr Bulleid was solicitous for plaintiff's health and told witness not to let her husband worry. Witness told Mr Bulleid that if Mr Bulled would send Mies Grant to Mr Saundcrson'* house he (Saimderson) would instruct. liw as to tho method of continuing tin* stock taking. Miss Grant was not sent to t)u> house. Witness told Mr Biflleid Ilia I sho expected her husband to return to wirk for a short time on tho following TmwlayWitness recognised a letter produced, dated the 2St-h July, written at tiTo request plaintiff to Mr Bulleid asking Mr Jlulkid to go to see him as lie (Snuiidcrson) w» s not improving in, health. In response t« tho letter, Air Gardiner called. Witness heard the conversation between M r CJai diner and her husband. Plaintiff told Mr <.'.-ircliner he was unable to return tliat day and spoko in general terms of his illness. lie uaid l |B hoped to get back to work by SaturdayHe wished to iget on with the s'tock-takinf!, and repeated his wish that Miss Grant should be sent up. Witness certainly considered plaintiff would be able to return work by Saturday.. Saundcrson certainly did not inform Mr Gardiner tliat, as his ill". 1 NS . would be of long duration, he would rts|(! n his position. Saundcrson wild whatever about resigning his position. the following day a messenger arrived frwjj Mr Bulleid with a letter which expressed his regret that Saundcrson was force®' through ill-health, to relinquish his p sl " tion, and enclosing cheque for salary 10 date. Witness wrote by tho samo mcsn®' ger again requesting Mr Bullcid to callLater on in the day another letter brought from Mr Bullcid in which Mr leid expressed his intention of detvrirtinfl the contract. On receipt of this letter, witness and plaintiff drove down to sec " Bulleid. On the Saturday following J"® 10 tiff could have gone to business and did t to town. Plaintiff lias not had a scrioU illness for 20 years. Witne.*w did not member plaintiff's being absent from wor except on one, occasion m the- end of of this year, when he waun I feeling w® ;uid therefore took his holidays. -"J Easter wee-k intervened during this I' ol day, which lasted 10 days inclusive o .Easter. Tiiis was plaintiff's only from business. "Witness never heard piw tiff express any intention, of undcreoinj? •serious operation. Witness herself been in a state of health entailing consul able expense on plaintiff. To Mr Lee: Mr Saundcrson li.'td not p csntly consulted a medical man concert"® liis health except during liis illness jf 1 , when Dr Douglas was consulted. Th M / tho first occasion on which Ur ® oU £., was consulted. The doctor called tlrt> ness appendicular colic. It was not gether appendicitis. Previous to t'lifl .w ness had heard of symptom* of app«? dic

;. ~„ hcsband- At Easter time the doctor fttending witness and, at her request, •"* her husband, when the doctor sasd <6?JJL suffered from appendifcalar colic. had not attended witness' hus?Virioas to Easter, ana this was the kne w plamttflfs trouble- Piainabsent from work on any occ*before Easter. The doctor said that wished to be quite free from colic if Wd have an operation to the appen'r hot there was no necessity for the -;, n though he would be liable to an a'* any time. Witness had heard f$Z private hospital, bat u* removal of t, tatitt "> the private hospital was not f i!vrtJ >» itness was present the whole that 'Mr Gardiner was with her r hind except when she opened the door the pwtuuL She wad not absent for nliiultM- "Mr Gardiner, in saying that !uwl saia he had tendered his Tu."ii'n on account of —-Health, would telling the truth. Plaintiff was for he feared the stock would * hV- taken in time. , by Mr Crawford: When ■L,** attended the peatman she had a tv Aort distance to go. Saunderson had nude light of his illness, and had vntiy b.-«n accepted.by the insurance trts as a first class risk. Saunderaon, plaintiff, was next tt i >x£e had been engaged as a drapers fur 23 years. Witness had come sfoanw.ru to serve Mr Buiieid as the outuf correspondence. u.e commenced here on I'ebruary 18th, Witness had left the employ of Brown, Ewing, and Co., to come rZ He had been with Brown, Ewing and ft, for 54 vears as buyer and manager of £incy goods department. Witness had up the returns for the first year to the amount required to entitle him to a J of £25 as per contract. Mr Buiieid i!it frequently expressed satisfaction atthe in the turn-over. Witness found ! f to increase his stock to increase 1 Witness had pointed out faults ; n the "tuck when tie arrived. Had wit- "„ wished to leave Mr Bulleids he would ££ .Hv-en at feast three months notice. : witness had. in Tact, twice spoken of leav- ■' jjr Buiieid in December, as he understood tliat the three montiis' notice would f requisite. In December Mr Buiieid had -u oomething ahout buymg, and witness Ui said he would leave unless he received af> wr week. Witness had not an entirely t~. band in indenting. The Home buyer So interfered in this business 3lr Bulfy t. o. had ordered stock, so that witness Lf not. as set, oat, sole charge. of the department. The purchases whicu had come IT hand had overbanked witness' stock, kr.ew of no reason whatever why should he discharged His first absence throaih illness was on. the 21st July. _ He ,[vn expected to get back in a week s time, jnd sunt a message to hk employer to that T c: Witness, however, was not tit at 1 i'nd of the week to return, and sent a El r to Mr Buiieid. Witness could have Sained how the stock could be taken in w absence. "Witness, therefore, sent for Vr Buiieid. but in place of Mr Buiieid Mr Gardiner came up. Witness toldiMr GarJinar that he wished to see Mr Buiieid to Zb.lv. why he could not attend to his Sjfess, and told him (Gardiner) that he miected to get down cn Friday or _>-4 u JX He asked that one of the assistants ni%ht be sent to the house so that she ™,rfi6 he shown how to go- on with Stocktons. Any further conversation was geuenL %ithess heard Mis Saunderson tell I£r Gardiner that witness would be down for i few hours on Saturday. Two days later .letter was received from Mr_ Buiieid entlosinx a cheque for salary, 'the cheque, witness immediately returned, and asked It Bulled to come to see him. Mr rsolfr'd did not come, but sent a letter conta'lmn.r "witness' dismissal. Witness drove down "to see Mr Buiieid, and asked for an animation. Mr Buiieid said, "\ou gave toot resianation to Mr Gardiner. fins wicnes® denied, and said to Mr Gardiner, •Did I siv-e my resignation to you toMr Gardiner had nothing to say. Witiioa; asked Mr Balleid if there was any otlier reason for dismissing htm, and. -Ur Buiieid answered that witness owed ji town and he did not think it proper. \\ it--858 responded that he owed only three imoimts of anv importance, mentioning the nines of the creditors. Witness; then askeL about the bonus, and Mr Buiieid showei lim that he had been allowed a proportim of the bonus for five months VVitsa said thao he expected aa his due the 5 months* honos in full. Witness cerIjblt would have earned his bonus had he (undkned his year's service Wages were paid every four weeks. Witness had enSrored to secure employment since his £sc!iar rT e, but hud not succeeded. To ilr Lee: Wrtnees had never served nder a week's notice before. His experimsnp to the last ten years and a halt to at Home and in Australia. Witness tew Mollison's business in Donedin very reir It- was about- the same size as Bulfeif3 He also knew Dick and M'Kechmete.

(Left Sitting.)