THE TRAWLER “SWAN” CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3154, 25 February 1911, Page 2

THE TRAWLER “SWAN” CASE.

JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF. Mr W. A. Barton, S.M., yesterdaygave his decision in the case of r I homas ■ Brown; (Mr Barnard) v. Thomas Bell (Mr Mann) which was as follows: The plaintiff claims: —1 By an agreement in writing dated, the Bth day of December, 1910. and made between the defendant and the plaintiff the defendant agreed to employ the plaintiff to navigate rnd work the trawler Swan for the space of six calendar months from the 9th day of December. 1816 at a salary of £4 per week payable weekly, with a bonus o fone shilling per hundred | bundles of fish secured. 2. The plain- j tiff duly entered upon the performance of tlie .said contract, and performed' his work under the said contract until the 23rd day of January, 1911. and the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the said contract. 3. On the 19th day of January. 1911. the defendant became indebted to the plaintiff in the- sum of £4, being one week’s accrued wages, but the defendant has failed to pay the same, and the defendant has not paid any moneys to the plaintiff in respect of the- said week or of the further work of the plaintiff. 4. On the 23rd day of January, 1911 (and on several subsequent days) the defendant wrongfully terminated the plaintiff’s employment and dismissed the plaintiff therefrom, and refused to employ the plaintiff any longer, o. The plaintiff has suffered damage to the extent of £42 by reason of the fact that the plaintiff is unable to obtain as lucrative employment, but will be obliged to Btece.pt such casual labor as he mav be able to obtain. 6. The plaintiff claims £SO. The agreement is admitted, but it is contended on the part of defendant that it was practically cancelled' by mutual consent of the parties on the 22nd .January.” After reviewing the evidence, his Worship continued: Defendant admits that everything was satisfactory between himself and the plaintiff up to the last week he was in the boat. The question which I am called upon to decide is whether what took place between the parties on the evening of the 22nd January amounted to a termination of the agreement. I am of opinion upon the evidence that it d;d not. Ihe defendant admits that he sent the boat out

early on the morning of the 23rd of January as he expected the plaintiff to come down and he wanted to avoid any trouble. Now if the defendant considered that the agreement was terminated as from the 22nd January why should he have expected l the plaintiff to come down to the boat on the following morning? It is obvious from the evidence that the defendant wag anxious for some reason best known to himself to get rid of the plaintiff from his service, and he seized this opportunity as be thought of releasing himself from his obligation under the "agreement. Assuming that the defendant did consider that he was released from the agreement on the 22nd January it is clear that he could not have thought so when plaintiff went on hoard the vessel on her return to mirt the same afternoon, when he demanded to take charge of the boat. 1 am of opinion that plaintiff is entitled to succeed' in the action, the only question, therefore, being as to the amount of damage which he is likely to suffer. Plaintiff'has been paid his wages to the 13th January, tlie number of weeks between that date and the termination of the agreement are 21 at £4, £B4. I slihll take it that plaintiff will be able to earn on an average £2 IQs per wee.*c during the said period, which will reduce the amount by .£52-10s. leaving a balance in favor of plaintiff of £3l 10s. for which amount I shall enter judgment, with costs £5 18s. less the sum of £6 4.s 6d paid into Court.'’