The Express.
London, England, 1848-02-03 00:00:00

Rift intelltgents.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Nisi Pam a—Before Mr. Justice Wightiasn.
FLIGHT o. PETHERHRIDOE.—BREACH OP CONTRACT.—
TALLY 8110P8.—Mr. Humfrey, Q.C., with whom was Mr.
Willes, were for the plaintiff; and Mr. Seij. Shee and Mr.
Hance appeared on 1 uesday for the defendant. This was an
action brought by the plaintiff, who was a draper's assistant,
against the defendant, who was a draper carrying on busi-
ness at 2.5, Hatton-garden, to recover compensation for the
injury he had sustained by the defendant having improperly
discharged him from his service. It appeared that the
plaintiff became the servant of the defendant under a written
agreement, which provided that the plaintiff should serve
the defendant from March, 1845, for three years, at a salary
of 355. a week for the first two years, and 40s. per week fur
the last year. The defendant's shop is one of those class of
shops known by the name of " tally " shops, which
the learned counsel explained as being shops that supplied
goods to parties who paid for fhem by weekly instalments.
The plaintiff was tallyman to the defendant, having the col-
lecting of the weekly instalments; and he also conducted
what is termed the "court" business of these shops, which
consisted in summoning parties who failed to pay to the
county courts. The plaintiff had served the defendant till
the 16th July, 1847, when he was discharged, and, as he
now alleged, without any reasonable ground. The damages
were laid at 501., that being the sum agreed on between the
plaintiff and defendant, to be paid as a penalty if either
party broke the contract they had entered into. The plaintiff
also sought to recover the sum of 41.55., the balance of wages
due at the time of his discharge. In support of the plaintiff's
case several witnesses were called, who proved that the plaintiff
had been discharged by the defendant; and amongst others a
Mr. Davis, who stated that he waited on the defendant
twice en the 17th of July, 1847, once alone, and afterwards
in company with the plaintiff, and that on neither occasion
did he allege that the plaintiff was either wanting in
sobriety, honesty, or capability, but he merely said that
having discharged him he would take the consequences.
On the part of the defendant quite a different story was told,
the reason given for the plaintiff's dismissal being that he
was addicted to drinking, and that on the evening of the
15th of July he was quite intoxicated, and that on a cus-
tomer of the name of William Sullivan coming into the
shop to complain that he had not had credit given to him for
7s. 6d. that he paid off his bill, the plaintiff abused
him in a meet disgusting and disgraceful manner,
ran out into the street, pulled his coat off, and chal-
lenged him to fight. This was the justification
which the defendant now set up. As regarded the 4/. 55.,
the balance alleged to be duo to the plaintiff, the defendant
pleaded payment. To prove the defendant's case, Win. Sul-
livan was called, who stated that on going to the defend-
ant's shop to have the error in his account rectified, tha
plaintiff abased him,and said be would punch the three half
crowns, either out of, or into his heed, and that he ran into
the street, pulled off his coat, and offered to fight. Several ,
other persons in the defendant's employ were called,
amongst whom were the apprentice and the defendant's
sister, who said that the plaintiff was drunk, on the occasion
in question, and that he conducted himself in a most impro-
per manner; thaton his coming to the shop on the following
morning, his master remonstrated with him, upon which he
said he would do it again, and the defendant discharged
him, paying him the sum of 1/. 155., which the plaintiff then
took for a week's salary without making any demur.—Mr.
Humfrey having replied, Mr. Justice Wightmari summed
up, and the jury, after considering for nearly half an hour,
found a verdict for the defendant on all the count* but the
fourth, which alleged, that nothing was owing to the plain-
tiff for wages. They said they considered that 41. ss. was
due to him, but they thought that he was not entitled to any
damages, es the charges of drunkenness and misconduct
were fully proved.