The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-11-11
]. A. NJ. JOHNSON
IS SUED IN JAPAN
Former Business Man of Homo
lulu Hailed Into Court
for 1850 Yen.

The Japan Gazette Of October 10 con
tains the following which giu be of
interest 10 the very wide circle Of ae-
J. 4. NJ. johnson had in
these islands were he was in business
for 4 number of years:
On the morning of the 10th in the
Yokohama District Court, before Judge
Muraoka, the hearing was commenced
of a suit instituted by Teng Jui-chuan,
a Chinese resident at No. 1S5. Yama-
shita-eho, against Mr.. J. 4. n. John
son, managing director of the Nippon
Kokoku Boyeki Kabusbiki Kwaisha.
Ne. zoe. Yamashita-cho, Yokohama.
claiming the payment Of Y,35o as the
balance Of salary and the recovery of
security money. amounting to Y.2o00.
Plaintiff was represented by Messrs,
Hiraoka and Murofushi and Mr.. Sa-
wada appeared for defendant.
Mr.. Hiraoka prayed the court that
the defendant be ordered to pay the
claim and stated as the ground of the
claims that since September 10. 1906,
the defendant company had employed
plaintiff under the contract that no
salary would be paid for the first two
months in order to examine plaintiff s
ability, after which WOO would be
paid per month for one year. Plaintiff
had then lodged with the company the
sum OF Y2000 as personal security.
Despite the said contract, the defend
ant company discharged plaintiff on
August 81, this year without giving
the reason Therefore, plaintiff de-
manded of the company the return Of
the said security and the payment Of
salary till November next under the
yearly contract. but the defendant COM
pany only paid Y.5o, or half the salary
for the month of August, having re-
fused TO pay the remainder and refund
the security money. Hence the suit.
The counsel continued that of plain
tiffs claim Y50 is the balance Of sal
ary for August and Y.300 for Septem-
Der, October and November, 1907.
Mr.. Sawada asked the court that the
claim be dismissed
He stated that defendants had recog-
nized plaintiff s statement, but it must
be commended that the defendant com
pany employed plaintiff as salesman
for the purpose Of selling the compa-
nv's cash register in China instead of
in Japan. For the above purpose, the
company taught him the construction
of the instrument and the method Of
its manipulation. It proved too diff
cult for him TO learn the method, though
any other might have learnt it IN one
month only. In order to train him,
school teacher and an expert had been
employed, but without effect. For this
reason. the defendant company dis
charged him on August 81, 1907, so
that the claim Of plaintiff was unjusti-
fable. Plaintiff s counsel asked why
the company did not discharge plain
tiff upon the expiration Of the first
two months if plaintiff had been in
capable of dealing with the instrument.
At this stage plaintiff s counsel pro
dueed to the court Exhibits A, Nos. /
and :. It was proved by Exhibit No
l that there was a contract concluded
between the parties and also by Exhibit
A, No. , that plaintiff had lodged with
the defendant company Y2000.
Defendants counsel again insisted
that defendants employed plaintiff as
a salesman for China and additionally
as overseer Of statesmen in China, and
that if there were necessity of en-
ploving any salesman IN Japan, some
japanese would have been employed
for the benefit of the company IN re-
gard to the language, etc.
The counsel of defendants prayed the
court that three witnesses be summon
ed tt. prove the fact that plaintiff was
incapable of dealing with OF selling
the company's cash register and 70 ex-
plain the contract between defendant
and plaintiff.
The court granted defendants petit
ton 10 summon Cbo Nishikawa. and kI-
chinoio Nakamura as witnesses.
The proceedings were adjourned till
the 2nd Of November.