Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

17 articles on this Page

- CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL.…

[No title]

GOUT CURED COMPLETELY.

[No title]

CHESTER OLD KINGS SCHOLARSI…

CHESTER FIRM AND THEIR FOREMAN.

News
Cite
Share

CHESTER FIRM AND THEIR FOREMAN. ALLEGED WRONGFUL DISMISSAL. His Honour Judge Sir Horatio Lloyd, sitting at Chester County Court on Thursday, heard a claim by Mr. John Burnett, practical engineer and smith, of the Druids' Arms, Seller-street, against Messrs. Ockleston and Drayton Johnson, Ltd., of Liverpool, and Water Tower-street, Chester, metal workers, for JE25 9s. Id., for goods supplied, and J3100 for wrongful dismissal. Mr. E. Owen Roberts, barrister, instructed by Mr. R. T Morgan, solicitor, Chester, appeared for plaintiff, while Mr. F. A. Greer, barrister, Liverpool, in- structed by Messrs. Lindsay, Squarcy and Co.. solicitors, Liverpool, defended. Mr. Owen Robert. in opening the case, said that plaintiff entered the service of the defendant company in July, 1902, under verbal agreement. He remained there four months, and then a written agreement was entered into, to remain m force for 13 months, from December 1st, 1902. to December 31st, 1903, when the arrangement could be terminated by three months' notice on either side. or renewed for a further twelve months. His wages were fixed at 10d. per hour from January 1st. 1903, and at lid. per hour from Juno 1st, 1903. There was a condition that de- fendant should devote the whole of his time to the work of his employers. Any work brought in by him was to benefit him 5 per cent. on the selling price, provided it showed not less than 15. per cent. profit. On May 30th defendant was dismissed. Between July and November, 1902, plaintiff sold to do fondants his tools and appliances, and the claim of JB25 was in respect of appliances he sold tfc. defendants. Plaintiff was apprenticed for seven years in the works of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and he afterwards was in the employment of several firms in Birkenhead and Liverpool, having moved about in order to gain a wide experience of his work. No complaint was over made in regard to his competence and ability. In 1891 plaintiff came over to Chester and took over the business of J. G. Yates, Foregate-street, and for four years he was joined in partnership by his brother. The partnership was dissolved on his brother's receiving an excellent appointment in Colombo. Plaintiff carried on business for a few months by himself, and then he purchased the business of Mr. Stevenson, in Seller-street. He afterwards sold it to Messrs. F. J. Jones and Co., and remained with them as their foreman, meet. ing defendants while in that position. Messrs. Jones and Co. Tailed, and plaintiff rented the business at 8s. a week. One Saturday Mr Drayton Johnson came to him and offered fcc make him foreman in the new works he was start- ing in Water Tower-street. Mr. Johnson told him to bring with him his men and his tools and appliances, offering to buy tho latter from him. me following Monday he went to work in the service of the new company. He found the work- shop in a very unsatisfactory condition; the machinery was out of order, and there were no tools. With regard to the tools, on January 2nd plaintiff made a list of them and the price he sold them to defendants for. The amount was E73 and E50 had been paid in instalments, and plain- tiff now claimed the money for the remainder. He had been in business for himself for 13 years, and he knew of no reason why he should have been dismissed. It was a very grave reflection on nim. John Burnett, the plaintiff, in confirming this statement, said he was 38 years of age, and he had had practical experience of the work of engineer and smith since he was 13. when he was made an apprentice. Speaking of the tools, he said when he entered defendants' employment he took only half his tools with him, keeping the other half at his own shop for two months, when he disposed of the business. In giving him notice of dismissal defendants wrote that during the previous six months his department had lost £ 150, and that it was better the agreement should be terminated in order to bring the "horrible situa- tion to an end. Plaintiff had received no com- plaint. and he knew no cause for the dismissal. He did not suggest to Mr. Johnson that his em- ployment should be terminated. He had since obtained a testimonial from the firm stating that he had collected a large amount of knowledge from his varied experience as an engineer and smith."—Witness was cross-examined at great length by Mr. Greer about several uninteresting details of his work. He denied that he accepted the testimonial because he acquiesced in the dismissal. He had done no private work for cus- tomers. but only for his private friends, who had paid him for it. He Had not employed defendant's iiien to do his private work, except out of working iours. -,ii William James, Borough-road, Birkenhead, an •ngineer and machine smith of 30 vear.,i' ex- jorience. gave evidence as to the value of the tools in dispute. He thought that in some cases plaintiff might have obtained 25 per cent. more. Edward Henry Williams, 24, Chapel-lane, Houghton, deposed as to the the condition of the cools. James Hooney, fitter, Chester; Wm. Roberts, Handbridge, shipwright; Wm. Williams, Lead- works-lane and the Groves, boat builder: and Thomas Archibald Capner. Longport, Staffs., formerly of Chester, testified to plaintiff's general ability. The case was at this stage adjourned until a future date.

A CHESTER APPEAL CASE.

CHESHIRE ELECTRICITY AND POWER-GAS.

Advertising

CHESTER BOATMEN'S MISSION.I…

CORPORATION" ACCOUNTS.

[No title]

ART EDUCATION IN WALES. -------

---------BLUE COAT BALL. -+--

WELSH CHFRCH BAZAAR ---+---

Advertising

- CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL.…