New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-05-17
DAMAGES AGAINST THE NETWORK
COURIER AND ENQUIRER


In the Court Of Queens Bench, on Wednesday, ApnN
80, an American gentleman, named Gould, formerly
European correspondent to The New- York Courier
and Enquirer, brought an action against the propre
tor of that Journal Major General Webb, to recover
the balance of salary, and damages for dismissal
without notice. The plaintiff had acted for some time
correspondent Of association Of several American
papers to which the defendant belonged. In the
of the year 1850 he received . letter from Mr.. Ray.
moDd partner of the defendant stating that from the
lst Of July proIimo, the defendant would pay the
plaintiff $500 per annum for letter by every steamer,
averaging a column week. The plaintiff continued
to write under that engagement until he received
letter from the defendant informing him that from the
lst oJuy his salary would be increased ESQ., The letters
were regularly sent by the defendant On the 18th oan.
uary, 1e52 he received letter from The Courier and
Enquirer Office Diminishing him. Mr.. Gould, the
plaintiff, called, and stated that he came to En-.
gland as secretary to the American Legation, and
afterward remained, at the suggestion Of defendant,
biz correspondent The letters appeared under the
signature "Anglo Knickerbocker." In September,
1880, Gen. " ebb came TO England. He saw him. and
said be ready to accept Mr.. Raymonds offer pro-
visonsy but considered 1t great hardship, after his
long connection to have his emolument reduced from
$500 to fl00 O year. Gen. Webb said he could do
nothing until he returned TO America, and he tthe
PLAINTIFF therefore accepted the engagement at the
salary Of one hundred guineas. That arrangement
continued until he received the letter Of june 1851
lie continued to send letters pursuant TO the new
arrangement until nearly two months after he received
the letter of the 3oth Of December, 1881, which
reached him on the 18th of January, 1882 but
inserted after the LIST of January; he had
got police Of dsmssal before that; he was then
under liability persons in Liverpool and elsewhere,
with. whom he had made permanent engagements to
assist him. He was chiefly dependent on his literary
exertops, and the effect Of his dismissal was to sud-
denly stop his principal source of income. During the
Elk months that be received the increased salary he
only missed writing twice: on one occasion he was i'll;
on The other the train late for the steamer His
annual expenses connected with the correspondence
were at least ESQ; he had an3agent at Liverpool at
Ha NOT rpisa aapdip
tiers on more than three occasions in the last six
months of 1851. His salary paid up to July 1851
He claimed it up to July, 1852 the end of his first
year of his positive engagement and six months more
in lieu Of notice The defendants counsel cOntended
that the Irregularities Of the plaintiff in drawing and
negotiating his drafts were 90 great as to justify his
dismissal. From the plaintiffs own evidence, it ap.
peared that the increase of salary was given on the
express stipulation that the defendant was to receive
a letter by every steamer. He THE plsntiff had
failed in at least three instances and be submitted he
was therefore entitled to only the lower rate of salary
for that period. The jury found for the paintf-dan
ages fl70