The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-02 00:00:00

QUEEN'S BENCH-(THIS DAY.)

(Before Lord DENMAN and a Common Jury.)
FILLTENT V. ♦RMSTRONG.
Mr. BVLES (in the absence of his leader, Mr. Creswell) stated the
case. It was an action for a breach of contract, brought by the plaintiff,
a French tutor, to receive a sum of money due to him as teacher of
French and drawing at the defendant's school. The plaintiff had been
engaged by Mr. Donaldson, a school-agent, at 60/. per annum, with
board and lodging. At the expiration of six months the plaintiff went
to France to visit his friends during the holidays, which were to termi-
nate on the 30th January, but he did not return till the Ist of February,
two days afterwards. After remaining two days at the school, he was
dismissed on the 3d February, on the ground that he had not returned
in time. The case had been tried before, and a verdict was had for the
defendant on the second plea, which was, that the defendant had been
dismissed for not having returned at the proper time. The Court de-
cided that the ground of dismissal was insufficient, and granted a new
trial. It would be for the jury now to say to what damages the plaintiff
was fairly entitled.

John S. Donaldson—l am a clerical and school agent, residing in
Adam street, Adelphi. In Midsummer, 1835, thedefendant, the Rev.
Mr. Armstrong, who kept a school at the time at Segrave-House,
Cheltenham, applied to me for a French and drawing master, and I
agreed with the plaintiff for 601. a year, with beard and lodging. I
saw Mr. Fillient in Feb. 1836, after he had left his employment. He
told me he had been two days late, and that Mr. Armstrong had written
for a successor. He said something to the effect that Mr. Armstrong
had told him he might remain for a day or two, and take his chance of a
successor arriving.

Three letters from the defendant to the plaintiff were put in and
read ; two of them enclosed checks for the quarter's salary; the second
intimating that vacation would terminate, and school re-open on the
30th of January. The third letter was a certificate of the good
conduct and attention of the plaintiff to his duties, and was dated the
3rd of February.

Mr. D. Por.Locx submitted that no proof had been given of a dis-
missal wrongfully by the defendant.

Mr. BYLES contended that on the plea of the general issue he was en.
titled to a verdict; and, after considerable discussion,
Lord DENMAN thought there was a case to go to the Jury.
Mr. D. Por.Locx having addressed the Jury for the defendant,
Lord DENMAN, in summing up, expressed his regret that the case
should have been again brought before them, as he was [aware that a
great deal of money had been already expended upon it. It appeared to
him that there was no proof of wrongful dismissal, therefore, on that plea,
there must boa verdict for the defendant; but with respect to the de-
fendant's plea that he had made no contract with the plaintiff, that was
manifestly untrue. It was no fault of the defendant, but arose from that
unfortunate love of loading the record with untrue statements, which
originated in gross inattention to the interests of clients, and unhappily
prevailed to a great extent.
The Jury found for the Plaintiff—Damages, 4/.