MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 5006, 14 May 1889, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

TlMAßU— Tuesday, May 14. (Before 0. A. Wray, Esq., R.M.) DRUNKENNESS. A first offender was charged with drunkenness, and fined ss. CIVIL CASES. Judgment by default was given in the following case : Davies and Murphy v. Jno. Lynch, claim £4. W. Dali v. Atlas Milling company, claim £49 16a,

This case was beard at length last court day, when His Worship reserved his decision, which ho now gave. This was an action for 'wrongful dismissal in which the plaintiff sued for his whole wages during the term of his engagement as per written agreement. His Worship thought that the particulars should have been framed specially alleging the contract and the readiness of the plaintiff to serve and the defendants dismissal from their service (see Hennings v, Tindall 17 L. J., Ex. 18), whereas they contained the bare items sued for only. This objection was, however not raised until the the conclusion of the case, and the whole of these matters were thoroughly sifted in the evidence, so that the defendants would not suffer by the decision it being understood that the judgment includes all claims against them whether for wages or damages in connection with the dismissal. His Worship held on the evidence that the cause of the plaintiff’s dismissal was primarily owing to the defendants having found, after engaging him for 6 weeks certain, that they did not require the services of a traveller, and that his dismissal was not justified by the misunderstandings which took place about filling up the circulars. His Worship] thought, however, that the plaintiff should have shown his readiness to fill up the circulars immediately, and would allow for this in considering the damages. The measure of these will be the actual loss incurred, that is in this case the salary of the plaintiff for 6 weeks, £24; it having been shown that he was not able to obtain other employment during that period, and was ready and willing to serve defendants as their traveller. Had he done what was required in the office His Worship would probably have allowed a week’s hotel expenses at' Timaru (up to dismissal) as it was lie should disallow this item altogether. The sum of £9 Is for expenses before dismissal as proved arid ad : jpittgd would ho allowed, making in ill a judgment lor the plaintiff for £33 Is, with court costs £1 10s and solicitor’s fee £2 2s, including £ls Os lOd paid into court by defendants. With regard to the railway ticket, having found that tho dismissal was not justifiable it must remain with the company who supplied it in order to (save themselves tho full railway fares during tho six weeks for which they had employed the plaintiff. It was not transferable, and therefore the plaintiff was right in refusing to transfer it, aud beyond tho fact of tto admission of tho plaintiff that he used it once to try and get employment, there was no evidence to show that he benefited by its retention, or that it would have been of any rajuo to the defendants if returned.