The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-02-16 00:00:00

COUNTY COURT.-YESTERDAY.

(MORE JOSEPH POLLOCK, ESQ.,, JUDGE.)

WCORMICK V. REYNOLDS.

This was an action brought by a printer, named Charles
1911`Cormick, against Mr. Charles Reynolds, manager of
the printing department of the NORTHERN DAILY TIMES to
recover 3/. 145., being a fortnight's wages claimed in lieu
of a fortnight's notice.
Mr. Gray appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Bremner
for the defendant.
Mr. Gray briefly stated the circumstances of the case,
:which will appear by the evidence. He offered to prove
that the custom among all letter-pressmen, was to receive
a fortnight's notice, but Mr. Bremner said, he would fully
admit that fact.
Charles McCormick deposed, that he had been in the
dmPloYment of Mr. Reynolds in the printing office of the
3EYMERR DAILY TIMES, previous to the evening of Mon-
, the Bth December, 1855. His wages were 37s weekly.
On that night, Mr. Reynolds gave him a pieceof" copy" to
sell
d desired him to set it in a peculiar kind of type,
minion." Plaintiff felt surprised at this, seeing
that the copy was set in nonpareil, but he took it and
followed the directions. Plaintiff got No. 2 of the copy,
Mr. Reynolds gave No. 3ofit to another man. The
other man shortly after came over to plaintiff, and asked
"on how was he setting it ? and plaintiff told him in
The other told him the rest of it was set in
I,l!)l3Pariel Plaintiff had at the time, about five lines set.
Ile went to Mr. Reynolds and asked him, did he not tell
had_ to set it in minion ?" Mr. Reynolds denied that he
se, and used some very coarse expressions to
witness telling him to get out of the place.
mad
r.
Gray : I believe upon frequent occasions he has
Plaintiff
of rattier coarse language towards you?
rlaintiff : Ile has.
zt_ll:ilr. Gray : Look at these different papers before
11A
saMilf t:bßesyrearine. your own writing?
!Mr. Gray : Is the
language set forth ;-
11,a_ ogoage which the defendant used on thanalasbeen in the habit of addressing to you?
Plaintiff: It is.
Mr. Bremner . •
Plaintiff : What has this to do with the case
If you will permit me for a few moments—
. jils Honour : I shall not permit you at all ; you have
lin advocate, and you must permit him to conduct your
qUAersrt.ionGoraf
ease I cannot allow you to do it ; confine yourself to the
yyrr discharge.
.vvrthlaiyraoluff) lie did.
On the occasion of the dismissal, did he
express these words and this language ?
He said," Go now,'and to hell, &c.,
Here the plaintiff repeated several coarse
expletives, and Mr. Gray handed in the docnments
referr
ed to. which were cafu compiled lists of
expressions alleged to have been used by defendant.various
Mr. Bremner : Your Honour, we deny them in toto.
of Honour :Of course you will have an opportunity
uenYing it. No doubt this language, if it were used, is
tierY blasphemous and wicked language, such as is quite
pr. to be used by any one belonging to the Christian
to, or to any religion at all.
office plaintiff then proceeded to state that he left the
the t once. On the following Saturday he went for
Mr.
r.
balance of wages due to him, 14s or 15s, and he asked
RReYnolds whether he might return to his work ? Mr.
hbernolds said " No, von have discharged yourself." Mr.
W„a2olds then paid him the portion of wages due to him.
,T:ltiff added that he was out of employment three
8:148, until he was taken into employment by the over-
see of
printaing no ther department of the same concern, the
office.
said cross-examination by Mr. Bremner, the plaintiff
had successive
it was the custom in many offices for parties who
the successive numbers of the same copy, to inquire of
heParty co-
wposing the first part what type he set it in, but
said in other offices the custom was not so, as the man-
qave express directions with every portion of.copy.
y.4..F his instance he assorted that he had had directions
expressly from the manager, and therefore he did not
• theparty
who had the first portion. The plaintiff ad-
li,tt ed that he had been under an obligation to Mr. Rey-
to
thatasl3l
:;:iro to
who, upon a former occasion, kindly lent him £2
pay the burial expenses of a child. He de-
em the night in question the only expression
fool?
ed
,towards him by Mr. Reynolds was, " Go to hell, you

papers

irln answer to his Honour, the plaintiff said that every
in the printing office must, of necessity, have heard
him, Reynolds use the expressions which he attributed to
Trt From the place where they stood.
This was in substance the plaintiff's case.
Wain greener contended that there was no substantiated
w'tun at all. He denied that there was any discharge
thhatever, and the only foundation for the allegation was
of their Reynolds, made indignant by the stupid blunder
tio`uePlaintiff, which he had not authorised by any direc-
In use the words "go to hell, you fool," but not
oftVe meaning of a discharge. He also denied, on the part
client, the use of any of the coarser expressions at tri-
eusur dto him. As a proof that Mr. Reynolds was held in
that m by his employees, Mr. Bremner mentioned the fact
try thiserY short time ago he had had presented to him.
e very men a handsome gold watch as a tribute of
L "Peet for his character and for the manner in which he
‘reated the
their, reYnolds was then examined, and deposed that on
aho-'gnt in question he distributed the copy alluded to
type
halpast nine o'clock. He did not give any
t`.:3Leructions to the plaintiff to set it in any particular
j. 131 •It was the practice in his printing-office, as well_
a others, for compositors who had successive portions
„f",`,e_,PY to enquire of the man who had the first portion
minutes
type he was instructed to set it in. It was a few
uutes before ten that he found the mistake made by the
Plaintiff, and he admitted that when plaintiff began to
aa u,.e rg„.. the point he did say "Oh, go to hell, you fool,
rt be bothering me," or something to thateffect, but he
:!..enled altogether having given him any discharge. These
il7.r! the last words, and the only words he used to him, for
pd not see him again that night. Mr. Reynolds denied
i`tlane most positive manner heaving ever used such lan-
sionge
Or as tat written
during his life, in the i
added that he did
on that occ,-
A.,OE. any Believetimefe, and
he could frame such expressions in his mind.
Honour said some of the expressions were so very
rarkable that no one who had used them at all would
to forget them.
eve .• Reynolds again asserted his utter denial of having
r used tlie
Gray :On-examined defendant at Some lengthas
whether he had been in the habit of frequently using
cert ain v
. ery profane expressions, which the learned ad-
L'uate read at full length, and with emphasis, from some
Zeres in the hand-writing of the plaintiff. The defer"
kind, denied having ever used any lance.'-

of the

antientnpositor named James Galloway was e79.roined,
the deposed that he was close behind both parties when
„hgoeteisphet
yteotiokfeepL.la,ce. He heard Mr. Reynolds say
but he positively stated that no d:s-
-° was given by Mr. Reynolds. and that none of the
pregssions attributed to him in the papers were used.
stated that no such expressions, if they had been
Weed at that time, could possibly have escaped his hearing.
leayseaw plaintiff putting on his coat short after, as if to
, and remonstrated with him, andly advised him
:17.1
nto make a fool of himself, but plaintiff said he
.ot care, that there were more printing offices than
Parish churches, and that he would not stand, what he
called, such dogmatical behaviour.
Another compositor, named Thomas Pringle, gave
!mailer evidence, generally. He stated that he did not
Initlerstand any discharge had been given, and that he did
10,hear Mr. Reynolds use any such language as that
that in the papers. He admitted upon cross-examination
at he told plaintiff in Lord-street that he (plaintiff)
ad been shamefully abused, and he wondered how he
!tee od it. He denied having ever stated to plaintiff that
RußuWas under the impression Mr. Reynolds did give him
ischarge, or that he said he never heard any man use
ch beastly language-
Mr• ilaisn, Reader at the office, deposed that he was
close to the parties at the time, and that Mr. Reynolds
gave no discharge, and used no language except the
admitted "go to hell, you fool." He added that his irn-
Pression was that the plaintiff said " then i had better go
nlie
ow." upon which Mr. Reynolds said " just as you like."
positively stated that he heard all the dispute, and
hat no such expressions u those contained in the papers
Were used by Mr. Reynolds. A little swearing was useful
In a printing office as a " spur."
This closed the case for the defence.
Arr- Gray then briefly replied upon behalf of the
Plaintiff, and urged that there had been a discharge given
and that unless there was gross perjury somewhere the
expression alleged by the plaintiff must have been used.
His Honour in giving judgment. said: I think it quite
Z!lear, even from the evidence of M'Cormick, that there
was no discharge from the service. I think it must be
jnferred that he had language used towards him which
It would
hare
in I ;be en much better if Mr, Reynolds had
not o
indulged quite the doctrine, that if a
servant has language used towards him which ought not
to have been used, he may leave without forfeiting his
wages ; but I do not agree that he is at liberty to leave
under such circumstances and to claim also a fortnight's
notice. He may remain in the service—he may give a
fortnight's notice, and it would be a good reason for giving
notice, that he had languaar
use u
of
;
towards him whichprefers
m
ought not to have been d
going away at once, and will not remain in a place where
he has been exposed to, what he considers, unjustifiable
language, he then cannot claim a fortnight's notice,
I
although he would not forfeit the accruing wages. have
no doubt upon my mind that there weresome
mangureyh,
foolish,foolish,unbecoming expressions used, which had
better not have been used at all—expressions which, pro-
bably, we have not heard the whole of to-day; probably,
because Mr. Reynolds has forgotten what he said itnae
Moment of anger, and, probably, because some of the
other witnesses, either do not exactly remember them, or
feel disinclined to repeat them, but that there were some
very strong expressions used I must believe from
the evidence of Mr. Pringle, who gave his evi-
dence very fairly. In my opinion Mr. Pringle,
stating upon his o ith, what must be very disagreeable
t° hits, is very creditable, and shows that he prefers tell-
ing the truth upon his oath, to any supposed interest
'by which he might have in keeping on good terms with those
whom he is employed : I ',am certain that Mr.
Reynolds's own cooler judgment disapproves of the
Xpressions used. They are unbecoming any man
,---but particularly unbecoming a gentleman of M.r.
ReYnolds's acquirements, such as he must possess in
Order to hold the situation in which he is now placed, and
'ttehich, no doubt, he is very adequate to fill. Therefore, I
have no doubt, that his own cooler judgment will disap-
prove of those expressions ; and I see no reason to impute
,14.11.ra the much stronger and more frightful, the disgust-
"g, expressions attributed to him in these papers. Ido
not believe that these expressions were used by him upon
u
Fl occasion. Strong expresetana there were, probably,
d. Men in anger, if once tkay p beyond the bounds,