The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1904-09-16

SUIT FAILS
The Court finds Inter.
Island Company
Not Liable.

Federal Judge Dole finds that George
Lesslie II not entitled to any dam.
ages, whore he claimed $4,000. against
the lnter-lsland steam Navigation co.
FOR breach OF contract of employment
and promotion. The decision IL on eX-
ceptlons 10 amended libel In admiralty,
exceptions to the original libel having
been sustained on the ground that the
libel showed the agreement to be an
ordinary contract for hiring aud con.
talned no stipulation fixing any definite
period for the termination of the en-
gagement, the rule being. that in such
cases the contract may be terminated
at any time at the election of either
party"
Stating the case the court says:
"rhe amended libel alleges that pre-
vious to the engagement, libellant. in
addition to the allegations as to his
occupation as mariner and skilful
master of steam vessels, was in the
city of San Francisco where the wages
were seventy-five dollars a month with
board and lodging for the position OF
second mate, and that he had, previous
to the said engagement secured an APP
pointment as second mate upon one II
the said coastwise steam vessels at said
wages and board and lodging, but had
not, at the time of said engagement.
entered upon the discharge of his du-
ties under such appointment" etc.
In the original bill the libellant alleg-
ed that he was a mariner and licensed
as skilful master ocean steam YES
sells and relied upon his wages as
mariner for his support; that he en-
tered into an agreement with the libel
lee to work on its steam vessels in the
capacity of second mate at fifty dol
lars a month wages, and his board and
lodging, which were worth thirty dol
lars n month; and the libellee agreed
as part of the contract that his en-
ployment should be steady with chance
of promotions that he began work un-
der such agreement August s, 1901, or
the steam vessel known as the Keau-
hou, ms second mate thereon; that on
September 6, 1901, he was promoted by
the libelee to the grade of first mate
on the said steam vessel with the pay
Of ninety dollars month and his board
and lodging.
Exceptions to the amended libel COM
ing on for hearing. counsel for the
lbellee renewed the contention that the
general rule as to contracts of hiring
applied, there being no stipulation as
to the length of service agreed upon
and that the contract was not one In
which damages could be given on n
suit for breach of contract on account
of the discharge of the employe.
Judge Dole discusses several authorl-
ties from which he is led to say that
If the libellant had been discharged
upon his arrival at Honolulu before
he had entered upon the duties of his
new position the case would have been
different. On this view he concludes
the decision thus:
IF that had taken place, / should
feel that in some way he would be en-
titled to damages, for to induce sailor
holding an engagement in San Fran
cisco worth seVenty-five dollars a
month with board and lodging, to cam
eel such engagement and come two
thousand miles to Honolulu, on the
promise of steady employment with
chance of promotion with wages at
fifty dollars month at the start and
board and lodging, and then to dis
charge him on his arrival at Homo
lulu, would unquestionably be treat
ment savoring of rank injustice. But
as the contract with the libellant was
carried out in good faith for period of
over two years and half, and the
II limitation I'm gIIIl "a his
should have steady employment with
chance of promotion being faithfully
carried out by promotion to the posi-
ton of first mate with raise of wages
from fifty to ninety dollars a month
md board and lodging as before, before
he had been in the service of the libel
ee foN one month, feel, on the theory
hat he was entitled to employment UNI
Ter his engagement with the libellee
or reasonable length or dine in view
If the sacrifice that he made at the in
,eption of the contract by ,anceling
ais engagement in San Francisco and
coming to Honolulu, which may be said
o support a presumption of an engage
nent on the part of the employer for
IN engagement for such reasonable
line as would be n substantial return
or such sacrifice, that he had nothing
o complain of and has suffered no
damages that the libellee is liable for
N account of his discharge.
In accordance, therefore, with these
exclusions, the exceptions are allow
d."
j. j, Dunno, proctor for libellant;
NTH & Lewis. proctors for libellee.