The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-03-01

AN ENGINEERS CONTRACT
THE QUESTION ARGUED IN ST.
PREME COURT.
DAMAGE SUIT AGAINST COAST LINE ROAD
An Engineer Who Was Dismissed on Charge
of Burning an Engine Alleges That the
Charge Was False and Asks
$4,000 Damages.

One of the most important cases be
fore the Supreme court in ma u years,
SO far as the principle involved IS (cE-
cerned, was argued yesterday.
1t is the case OF Richardson vs.. Rail
road, involving the nature of the con
tract of railroad with an engineer
whether his contract is for contiuuorS
employment and whether under il the
railroad has a tight to discharge him
50 long as he faithfully discharges hl>
duty. And if the railroad has such
right, is the burning of an engine due
cause for Il discharge.
The case was argued for Richardson
by Judge w. X. Allen and W. c. Man
roe. of GoldsborO. and for the raIlr0ad i
by George Rountrec, Of Wilmington,
and +. "A. Daniels, of Goldsboro.
Richardson sets forth in his complaint
that he was in 1895 in the employmen,
of the Wilmington and Weldon Railroad
as engineer on the Spring Hope branch
ut a salary of 500 per month, and that
his term of employment was during good
behavior and necessity for such services.
That i'll January, 1898, the railroad
"wilfully. malic.ously and wrongfully'
discharged him from it's employment
and has ever since refused to receive
him back. 1t is further complained that
as Il pretext for discharging the plain
tiff the railroad alleged that he had
burned his engine with steam pressure,
caused by his negligently allowing the
water to get too low in the boiler; which
allegation was false" and has rendered
it impossible for the plaintiff to obtain
otb pp in a ,.I1o l. +,
That the plaintiff did obtain employ
ment from the Wilmington SeacoaSt
Railroad, which extends from Whining
tom to Wrightsville. and which railroad
runs its engines under the shed of the
Wilmington and Weldon Railroad at
Wilmington. and he is informed and be-
lieyeS that the Wilmington and Weldon
Railroad Company actuated by the same
malicious motives by which it was gov
erned in wrongfully dscharging the
plaintiff and from no fear of injury to
its property or passengers. informed the
said Wilmington Seacoast Railroad thar
if it continued the plaintiff IN It's en-
ployment that it could not run its cars
under the shed of the said Wilmington
and Weldon Railroad, which running OF
its cars under SAID shed by said VIII
mineton Seacoast Railroad. being o..
importance to its business interest the
Wilmington Scacoast Railroad was
compelled to discharge the plaintiff from
its employment. and the said road did
by reason of such wilful malicious and
wrongful conduct of the defendant. dis
charge the plaintiff from its employ
ment."
Because of this the plaintiff Richard
son asks $4,000 damages.
The trial in the court below, Judge
Moore presiding. resulted in verdict
in favor of the railroad, and an appeal
was taken to the Supreme court.
The principal decision relied upon by
the railroad is that in an English case.
Allen VS.. Flood appeal cases, 1S9Sl.
which shows to what extent the doc
trine Richardson asks to be laid down
by the courts can be carried.
In this case Flood and Taylor Were
shipwrights employed fer Il job on
repairs for ship. along with forty other
workmen. all liable to be discharged
at any TINE The forty workmen OBJ
iccted to the employment of Flood ant
TAYLOR on the ground that they weTe
non-union men and threatened to 20 or
a strike if they We're rot discharged
The employers. III fear Of the threat be
inc carried out. discharged Flood ano
Taylor and refused TO employ them
again As, but for this. their employ
ment, would have continued. they
brought suit for damages against Allen