The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-04 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Sittings at Nisi Prius in Middlesex.—(Before Lord
Chief Justice Cockburn and a Common Jury.)
BRETT V. PHILLIPS.-DISMISSAL OF A SHOPMAN.

This was an action to recover damages in conse-
quence of the plaintiff having been improperly dis-
missed from the service of the defendant, and there
was also a count for. slander.
Mr. Ribton appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr.
Sergeant Petersdorff and Mr. Yates for the defen-
dant.

The plaintiff had been for four years in the
service of Mr. Carlin, a tobacconist, of Regent-
street, and. afterwards for two years had been shop-
man to Mr. Martin, who earned on the same kind
of business in Ludgate-street. In December,
1857, Mr. Martin sold the business to the
defendant, and on the 11th of that month

it was agreed that the plaintiff should be his
shopman at a salary of £lOO a year. The
engagement, which was verbal, was to be for
•
one year certain, to commence on the 21st Dec.,
and was afterwards to be determinablo by three
months' notice. The two quarters' salary, due in
March and June were paid, and no complaint was
made until Monday, the 13th Sept. On that day
the plaintiff was called into the back room, where
he found Mr. Mayhew, the defendant's solicitor.
Mr. Mayhew said he had been informed by the
defendant that plaintiff had been robbing him to a
very great extent. Plaintiff said he did not know
what he meant, and asked for an explanation. Mr.
Mayhew said, " How about the five dozen and nine
cigars ?" Plaintiff still said he did not know what
he meant, and the errand boy was then called in ;
and he said he had heard the plaintiff tell his
brother that he had got off on the Wednesday even-
ing with five dozen and nine. The boy also said
that he had taken for the plaintiff a parcel which
felt soft, as though it had tobacco in it. The parcel
was directed to the plaintiff's wife, who kept a
cigar-shop in Clerkenwell. Plaintiff explained that
the parcel contained an old coat, some aprons, some
tea and some small sashes. The real conversation
plaintiff had with his brother was in reference to
some meerschaum washed pipes, which the brother
had sold to the defendant. Plaintiff told his brother
that he had sold from three to four dozen before
nine on Saturday. There was nothing said about
five dozen and nine. Mr. Mayhew asked plaintiff
to confess, saying if he did, that defendant would
let him off. Plaintiff said he had nothing to con-
fess, and he would not confess to what he had not
done for any man. The defendant said he had a
detective outside and that he would give plaintiff
into custody, and then send and arrest his wife and
his brother. Ultimately the plaintiff was told by
Mr. Mayhew that he had better go. The plaintiff
said, " How about the quarter's salary ?" but get-
ting no answer, he left.
Mr. Sergeant Petersdorff submitted that the
engagment being for more than a year was not
valid unless in writing ; and that as to the count
for slander there was no evidence. The slander
alleged in the declaration was the following :—" He
took away with him on Wednesday night five
• dozen and nine cigars, which he divided into two
Packages, and put one of them into each pocket."
There was
no evidence of the defendant having
said anything
of the kind.
His lordship thought that the plaintiff could not •
recover on these counts, but said that there was a
count for wages for that portion of time that
elapsed between June and the 13th September,
when the plaintiff was dismissed.
After a good deal of discussion as to the various
issues, it was decided to lay evidence before the
jury upon the count for wages between June and
September.
• The defendant was then called. He said that
plaintiff,
had a
wife, he
after Mr. Mayhew had spoken to the pla
he
no
t
begged to be allowed to go.. said
and he should be rieufnenedd,aenvte
said
df the
that chargebefore
was not substantiated. Defendant
he would consent to mercy plaintiff must show
'contrition. He admitted he had taken away cigars
for his own smoking ; as many as half a dozen at
one time. He said he thought witness allowed
that, as he allowed smoking in the shop. Five or
six days after plaintiff left, witness took stock and
found a deficiency—taking selling prices—of
£2lO.
Samuel Tosland said he was errand boy to the
defendant. Before his master came to live on the
premises in Ludgate-street, witness had seen per-
sons waiting outside the shop. They came in after
the plaintiff left. The plaintiff used to hand them
cigars, and they stopped in the shop and smoked
them. Sometimes he would give them parcels,
which they would take away. Sometimes the
parcels would be given two or three times a week.
After the defendant came to live on the premise 4