The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1907-11-12
]. A. N. JOHNSON
IS SUED IN JAPAN

The Japan Gazette of October 10 con-
tains the following which will be OF
interest to the very wide circle of ae-
quaintanees ]. A. N. johnson had in
these islands were he was in business
for number of years:
On the morning of the 18th in the
Yokohama District Court, before Judge
Muraoka, the hearing was commenced
of a suit instituted by Teng Jui-chuan,
Chinese resident at No. 1S5, Yama-
shita-cho, against Mr.. J. A. NJ. John
son, managing director of the Nippon
Kokoku Boyeki Kabushiki Kwaisha,
No. zoe, Yamashita-cho, Yokohama,
claiming the payment of Y.350 as the
balance of salary and the recovery of
security money, amounting to 10000.
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 Y.2000 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.50, or half the salary
for the month of August, having re-
fused 10 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
airy 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 reeog-
nized plaintiff s statement, but it must
be contended that the defendant COM
pany employed plaintiff as salesman
for the purpose of selling the compa-
ny'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. 1t 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
thatsthe 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 plaintiffs counsel pro-
dueed to the court Exhibits A, Nos. l
and ,. 1t was proved by Exhibit No.
l that there was contract concluded
between the parties and also by Exhibit
A, No. that plaintiff had lodged with
the defendant company Y.2000.
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-
ploying 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
I'd to prove the fact that plaintiff was
of dealing with or selling
the eompany's cash register and to ex-
plain the contract between defendant
and plaintiff.
The court granted defendants petit
ton TO summon Che Nishikawa and XII
shinojo Nakamura as witnesses.
The proceedings were adjourned till
the 2nd Of November.
"A n p Al1la