The Sun.
London, England, 1829-07-08 00:00:00

DUNN V. MURRAY AND OTHERS.

This case came before the Court ona question
raised by the award of a gentleman at the bar, to
whom the cause had, by an order at nisi prius, been
referred. It appeared that the plaintiff had been em-
ployed as a reporter by the defendants, proprietors
of a newspaper, and having been dismissed from their
service in August, 1827, he brought an action for
the atnount of his salary to the end of the year. The
cause was referred to a barrister, who awarded a sum
Of 631. to be paid to the plaintiff for twelve weeks'
salary, at five guineas per week, from the 4th of
August, 1827, when the dismissal took place, to the
27th October following, when the action was brought.
The 631. having been paid, the plaintiff afterwards
brought the present action to recover the salary
which he claimed from the 27th of October to the
end of the year. On the cause coming on for trial,
the parties agreed to a reference to a barrister, who
had now made his award, finding that the plaintiff
had cause of action, unless the Court should be of
opinion that the former action was to be considered
as a bar to the second ; and awarding a sum of 52/.
to be paid to the plaintiff for his salary from the 27th
of October, 1527, to the end of the year.
Mr. F. POLLOCK (with whom was Mr. Richards),
for the defendants, submitted that the present action li
could not be maintained. The question turned upon
the form of the declaration in the first action, and
the award made by the arbitrator in that action. The
declaration alleged that the plaintiff had been em-
ployed by the defendants to report for them the
t
proceedings of the Court of King's Bench, and also
report in the House of Commons for the space of
One year, front February, 1827, at an annual salary,
at the rate of five guineas per week; and that the
plaintiff continued ttotottl
until
thethe
4d
tuttiyoff August,orlieh he
112 i a7d,
been so employed
when he was dismissed without any just cause.
The arbitrator by his award found that the plaintiff
had good cause of action, and had sustained damage
to the amount of 631., which sum he directed to be _

paid to him, " as the amount of compensation
accruing up to the 27th of October, 1827." Under
these circumstances, the question slow was, whether
the plaintiff was not precluded from recovering any
thing in this action. The arbitrator, in assessing
the amount of damages in the first action, was not
necessarily bound to give the whole year's salary.
It was competent to him to take all the circumstances
into consideration, and to award such a sum as he
should consider would be sufficient to compensate
the plaintiff for being dismissed from Isis situation
before the end of the year. There being a special
count in the declaration, the arbitrator might, if he
had thought proper, have given, by way of damatre,
a sum beyond that which had accrued up to the 27th
of October.

Mr. CAMPBELL, for the plaintiff, observed, that
there had been no plea of judgment recovered in
this case, and it was, therefore, open to the arbitra-
tor to inquire whether the plaintiff had been satisfied
by the damages awarded in the former action. The
plaintiff had declared on a contract by which he was
employed for a year, and having been dismissed be-
fore that period, he was entitled to the whole year's
alary, just the same as he would have been had he
continued in the employ of the defendants till the
end of the year. The arbitrator had, however,
merely assessed the amount of compensation up to
the 27th of October, when the first action was
brought. That fact appeared by the terms of the
award, and salary having become due weekly after
that time until the end of the year, the plaintiff was
entitled to recover it in this action.
The COURT took time to consider of the case.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JuLT 7.
IN RE JEFFEREYS.

Mr. Sergeant MEREIVETHER showed cause against
a rule obta►ned by Mr. Sergeant Wilde calling on
the Vestry-clerk of the parish of St. Andrew, Hol-
born, to show cause why a writ of privilege should
not issue on behalf of Mr. Jeffereys, to exempt that
gentleman from serving the office of overseer of the
poor of the above parish.—Judgment deferred.