Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

20 articles on this Page











[No title]











CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FOR ALLEGED WRONGFUL DISMISSAL. THE EARL OF POWIS AND THE PARK KEEPER. At Shropshire Assizes on Saturday, Henry Twilley, late park keeper to Earl of Powis, brought an action against Lord Powis to recover damages for wrongful dismissal.-air Darling, Q.C., and Mr Lawrence were for the plaintiff, and Mr Jelf, Q.C., and the Hon. A. Lyttelton for Defendant. Mr Darling, in opening the case, stated that plaintiff was dismissed at a month's notice, whereas they contended, as his allow- ances and so forth were all made yearly, he should iiave had a year's notice, unless the conduct of plaint-iff was sueb as justified dismissal at any time. This, therefore, was one of the points for the jury. Mr Darling pointed out that although Earl of Powis was made the defendant it was his agent (Mr Addie) who wa- really the person who directly dealt with the plaintiff.—The agreement was adduced, but there was no specific mention of the time for which notice should be given, so that the case had to be tried acc ording to law and ousto,-n.-The bum of £ 10 had baen paid into court, and defendant contended that that was sufficient.-Piaintiff stated that on the succession to the ertat) of the present Earl, Mr Addie saw him with reference to engagirg him, and an agreement was entered into. Plaintiff was not charged any rent, rates, or taxes. Ou the 14th September plaintiff received notice to leave, and left Lord Powis's service in consequence of his it,sisting on it. By the agreement the allowances and wages came to money valus of .£113. Then there were perquisites which ho enjoyed worth in cash about -650 a year, so that the place al- together was worth about .£160. Plaintiff, since dismissal, had failed to find other employirent. Cross-examined: A question did arise on the 5th August between plaintiff and Mr Addie (agent) re- garding the taking away of fawns. Mr Addie at the time of the engagement did not tell him that he was to have fawns subject to the permission of Earl Powis Before then he had always had the fawn after the herd was kept up to a certain number. Mr Addie, as a matter of fact, told him that while certain per- quisites would be stopped he would have the fawn as usual. Later in August plaintiff was sending a fawn to Shrewsbury when Mr Addie stopped it going. Previous to then Lord Powis himself approved of his having the fawn, and that everything was to go on as usual. Lord Powis did not say that even if it had been the custom to dispose of the fawn without per- mission of the late Earl plaintiff must not give them away without the permission of the present Earl. The Earl did tell him not to ba impertinent, but that was for something he said regarding Mr Addie. He did say, when Mr Addie said he wa-i not entitled to the fawn, May the Lord strike the liar down," meaning whichever it was. He felt that Mr Addie was swearing his life away to the present lord, and if the late lord had been alive he would soon have put the matter right. He had tile perfect confidence ot the late lord. It was true that Earl Powis did request him not to again use the words quoted ibove, but he did not tell him to l"ave the room. This was the case for the plaint ff. Mr Ielf addressed the jury on b^iialf of defendant, ionto'iding that as plaiutiff was a menial servant .11 he notice he was er.tit'ed to was a month, while, on ihe other hand, it he was impertinent, he was subject r,o instant dismissal. Lord Powis wai then called. He said he had an terviaw with Twilly regarding the fawns, but he him no permission to kill them. He saw the ttwkl wbih wlS being sent to Shrewsbury, and >e'an80 of that he sent for Twiily on the 10th August and asked him to explain his conduct. Twilly -ai i he had aright to do so. Defoudentreoionstratod with him, and told him that whatever his right under iie late Lord he bad no right und'r the existing agreement to send fiwnr away, and must not do it D. f^rident aekeJ for the herd book, but plaintiff said he had not got one. However, defendcnt fono a. book supposed to contain the number of the hprd, and found from tha;. that ihe herd was very deficient in numb *r. He told plaintiff under those circumstances he hal no right to kill the fawn, but plaintiff «>dd he had a right ti kill them whenever he cljoqe. Defendant told him he thought thay were his deer and not plaintiff's. He told pla ntiff he wis displeased with him. but would not dismiss him then. He should place him under supervision. Plaintiff madi use of the expres.-ion, May God strike the iiar down," several times, and was very insulting. Defen- dant had to tell him to leave the room once or twice before be would go. Def-indant talked ti-.<i over with Mr Addie, and decided to dismiss plaintiff for his conduct at that interview. The notice vras delayed for three weeks, but that was sim;>Iy beeause he did not wish to damage Twilly's character. Cross-examined Defendant did non know wh'lt was the practice in the late earl's life re^Hrd.ng the fawn. Dofendant did not wish to say p.'ainriff was dishonest in sending away the fawn, or ho would have dismissed him at once. He thought, plaint ff had misunderstood hia right. There was r.othing about the fawn in the agreement. William Forrester Addie (agent to Lord Powis) said when the late E--tri died he (witness) gave notice to all the servants to leave. Plaintiff was re-en- gaged. Witness told him not to dispose of any fawns without the d;rection or sanction of Lord Powis. Witness wis present fit the itit-rview, and cou d betn- out Lord P-.vvis's evidence as to what took place. Witness was told to dismiss pUintiff in the couree of the autumu. The jury found a verdict for defendant. The Judge said he would not allow costs.