The New York herald., 1874-11-07
COURT OF ARBITRATION.
anportant Decision in . Salary Claim
Case.
Re'ore Judge Fancner.

Important Decision in q Salary Claim
Re'ore Judge Fsncner.
Juoge Fancher, the ne wy appointed Judge Of
the Court OF Arbitration, gave yesterday his first
decision In y case. II was an action Tor salary
under contract though with no renaer OF service.
His exposition OF the law controlling cases this
nature, as snown In uis written opinion the
case, Will be found interesting.
THE OPINION.
Mr. George A. Garoner Claims to recover against
the Lafiln II Rand POwuer Company q balance OF
salary lrom August IL, 1872, to May /, 1873. ihe
claim Is iOunded on alleged contract. Ii Is not
founded on QuantuDl meruft no any actual SER
vice rendered during the time Tor which the claim
ie maue. Inc claimant himself asserts that his
services were reused and because Ol such refusal
he actually rendered no services during the time
abovemen loDed though Ne rendered his services
to one more officers OF the company. The con-
sn end on the lst o. May, 1872. 1t was not compe.
tent for the parties to make, by paro
contract for longer time: Tae statute sss pre-.
Germs Is not TO be performed within
one year rom the making thereof rs void
unless such agreement or some note or memo
randum tnereOl be In writing and subscribed Oy
tue party to charged Herewith, or his lawful
Agent."-(2. r s., 49,; sec 2, sub ]. sec s, Laws
or 1888, page s02) Therefore the notice, which In
April, 1872 was given TO Gardner oy the Treasurer
on the 1st siay ensuing, was IN accordance with
the legal rights OF the parties. lhe treasurer
testified that he was authorized BY the COMPANY
was Intellectual and that the original contract
made May |, 1871, continued after the lst OF May.
Treasurer First, L Is said in Garduer's reply 10
the notice, that the contract was made with Mr..
wan the ''ire But H II the was
authorized to give the notice. 1t would make no
difference In It's effect that the original contract
was made oy an0ther officer second. 1t IS
said That when Mr.. Rand made the cou;;
tract lor the company II VAS verbally agreed
that 1t should not be terminated except upon
sixty days. notice to Gardner IL 1t was so agreed,
the stipulation as to tue sixty days notice could
Contract Tor any parol Undertaking extending be.
yond year tom the making OF the contract
would be void under The statute. Gardner,
furthermore, claims that independent or the
above considerations, the contract OF 1871 was re-
nex ed with MIN IN 1872 .or another year. In sup
Continued Ill tne service o the powder company
alter May ], and so late as August 1877 receipt
signed % Gsrdnef was s os 'as M ana
1t specifies that d sum therein mentioned WAS re-
ce,ved by GARNER IN iull lor his services up 70
August II, 1872. There can be no doubt therefore
that Gardner did continue IN the employ OF tne
company after May !, and as late as August a,
1872. But the question to be determined. and on
from May /, 1872, 10 August IL, 1877, rendered
under an empio, ,ment OF Gardner ior year, or
under the temporary arrange .ent mentioned ~
the written notice OF the previous April signed
by the Treasurer ol the company and receiveo Oy
position that the employment was ior q year ex.
Cept the TACT that there hat oeen an employment
OF Gardner iOr the preceding year anu bhc iui tnci
fact empnaszed by Uardner tnat, although Nj.
Rand returned from abb DAD after the written
notice was served, nothing passed between MN
ano Garuner as TO the employment atter May l.,
1872. But because Rand sad nothing as TO the
term OF employ ment after his return Is not sui
Hcient ground to imply an engagement that the
term was to continue Tor the year. tie may NOS
have been authorized Dy the I. ustres 70 90 any :
thing about 1t, or II he had authority, ne may
have thought best to stand on tue notce watch
.haa aread, Deen given as TO the employ ment.
Because Gardner had been employed ioi
the preceding year Is not suhclent
ground 70 impy an engagement lot iol
May, ls72 new contract ior the ensuing year
was necessary lhe notlce contained provision
giving Gardner permission 20 continue till June,
or until Mr.. Rand on his return sG0uid make an
arrangement as to iutuie service. II must Dc hed
that u Gardner continued alter May |, 1874. he
continued under the privilege contained In the
notice. No one. on behalf OF the company, evtl
authorized sucn continuance on any other terms
The eli lIcumstance that Gardner continued stli
later than June, aud as iong as TO the 1ith OF Aug
ust weighs some " hat IN ais favor but Is not evi
dence tnat there was contract or the whole 0
the year. Ihe immediate preceding employment
from NAV 1 TO June was but temporary EMPLOY
ment; and'a continuance OF service TIL August /
would be lnIefled to be OF the same character, II
the absence OF any express agreement. ] tninl
At should DC held tnaf the claimant has not estab
Iisned contract covering the period OF TIME 10
winch he CLAIMS salary, and that there should "
an award That moth ng is due 10 HIM ON the Lal
lin d Rand Powder Company o salary. Ii IS i'm
possible To- spell out am contract Tor services be
tween the p0wder company ana Gardner In th