WARNING TO EMPLOYEES.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2745, 25 February 1910, Page 7

WARNING TO EMPLOYEES.

A BROKEN CONTRACT. At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning, before Mr W. A. Barton, S.M., John Henry Ormond (Mr Buruard) proceeded against Thomas Sutherland', of Christchurch, claiming damages amounting to £l9 10s.; Mr Burnarcl stated that Mr Ormond was bringing the case, against tlio man to serve as a warning to others, and not to make anything out of it. The. plaintiff gave evidence that he met defendant in Christchurch in the first week in December, in reply to an advertisement for a smith, lle engag. ed defendant and wired this to his foreman in Gisborne, and a man was dismissed from the works here. Ibis man left on the day defendant- was to have arrived. An arrangement was made that defendant had to arrive on 16th December. On that date defendant wired that owing to a serious accident he could not come for a day or two. Plaintiff, on the same day, wired, “Unfortunate, reply what date can arrive.” He received no reply to this, and on the 23rd again wired, but. got no reply. On the 29tli ulamtift wired ■that if defendant did not definitely reply the -engagement would be cancellou. He received a reply, asking for plaintiff to forward a ticket, ilhis was unto the Union office at Christ church. On the 3rd January plaintiff again wired to know why defendant had 'not come. He received no reply and on Januaij IS wired to defendant that the contract having been broken bv defendant, he had cancelled the engagement, and was .oping to sue for damages. Plaintiff had had to refuse a lot of orders, and -vyor c had to he delayed, owing to the nonarrival of the defendant. He estimated his actual dors was between £-\0 or ■£ ’0 His "Worship said it was difficult to assess the amount of damage, but there was no doubt he was entitled to some compensation. Judgment was given for £ls with costs £2 6s.