அம்
July 29, 1905.j
When you went into the kitchen-I didu't go into the kitchen.
You told us you did.— I did not. Well, had the provisions you saw been passed by the chef?-As a rule they had, but sometimes when I saw and condemned them, he said he had not passed them.
You did not examine each carrot or turnip?
-- No.
What do you know about carrots, Mr. Osborne ?—I suppose as much as any intelligent man does.
You are not au expert ?—No. Would you back your opinion as to the age of carrots against a man of nineteen years experience?—Yes, I think my opinion is as good as the chef's as to the age of carrots.
How can you tell the age?—Any fool can seÐ whether a corrot is aged and boley, and full of grubs.
Were the rest of the complaints made of the same nature as the complaints about carrots ?— I have been No, they were of a general nature. to the hotels in Japan and other places, and know that the food prepared by the chef was not up
to the standard.
Do you consider the complaints made were sufficient to convey to the mind of the plaintiff that you were dissatisfied wiil him?-I think so, taking them altogether. When the remark is made that the food is not fit for the table. I think any man who prides himself on his work would take such a remark as a sufficient sign of dissatisfaction.
|
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
Re-examined-Do you suppose it was possible for him to bave effected improvements on the various dishes ?—I think it was quite possible for any man, taking a pride in his work, to make a great difference.
With regard to the duties of selecting the best procurable meat, do you consider he did ?— As a general rule be did not.
Do you consider he effected any substantial improvement at all in teaching the Chinese cooks in the preparation and service of thei food?--I think he made very little improvement, indeed, and as regards the service, he rather retarded the improvement.
Has there been any improvement in the service since he left-There has beeu an improvement in the quality.
Are the Godown Company aware that you are a director of the hotel-Yes, and they sanctioned it.
Have you ever interfered with the actual cooking of food - Never.
Is it correct or not to say the soused fish was made according to your taste? The whole thing is a lie. An absolute lic.
Have you had any experience as a vegetable grower once had a private garden, and have had about fifteen years experience.
You grew carrots?—Yes.
Do you consider the carrots you condemned were fit to be brought to table--They were not fit to be brought to the hotel.
Messrs. William Parfitt and W. H. Potts. two of the hotel directors, also Mr. Davies, In how many other instances have you made acting manager, gave evidence in support of the complaints?—Until we had to go into details defendant company, after which the solicitors there were no records taken, but general com-addressed the judge. plaints were made as to the quality and service of food.
If this has continued so long. why dil you not have the chef up and give bim fair warning -As a matter of fact we told him once that if he wished it we would cancel his agreement.
With regard to the cost of meals, was there not a bonus offered provided he kept under $1.50 per day for the three meals-The second time he asked for an increase of salary we told him that if he would keep the cost below $1.50 a day, we would consider the question of bonus. What is the price of meals-I don't know, you had better ask the manager.
Would the hotel agents in England get you a man who is not reliable -I don't know, you
had better ask them.
As to the letter of the 6th April written by the Secretary of the hotel to the plaintiff. He didn't write on his own responsibility. I
suppose-No.
Does that letter show that the directors were dissatisfied with the plaintiff, after granting him a bonus?-I think it shows the conscien. tious manner in which the directors treated him, because. whilst complaining to him about the quality and service of the food in the general dining room, they were perfectly willing to recognise that private dinner parties were extremely well served, and to be perfectly fair towards him we informed him that on private dinner parties we would make him this bonus. On the other hand, as regards the general dining room, we expressed our dissatisfaction.
The bonus was going to be continued -So long as he gare satisfaction.
All this time were you contemplating dismis. sing him-The Board was not,
Do you know as a fact the price of meals in the hotel was kept below $1.50 a day?—I be. lieve it was, but he was only to get the bonus provided Le kept this average for the whole
year.
Since the plaintiff has been there do you know the attendance has ingreased?—I believe | the figures show it.
As matters now stand he was dismissed ou
|
.
His Honour, in summing up, said it was the evidence of the perfectly clear from directors and the acting manager that for some time there had been dissatisfaction in the minds of the directors as to the manner in which the plaintiff had performed his duties, and there was no doubt, from the acting manager's evidence, that he communicated such complaints to the plaintiff. The complaints were very trivial, but with a series of them there could not be much doubt that they would become sorious, therefore the directors were given reasonable cause for dissatisfaction. Then there was the dispute about the soused fish, and the directors decided to try another cook. The plaintiff was out and on returning found bis paos removed. His indignation took the form of abusing and insulting the manager in a very gross manner, and taking into con- sideration the series of complaints of the directors, in His Honour's opinion, there was a source for dissatisfaction and he considered the directors were perfectly justified in their action. He, therefore, gave judgment for the defendants with costs.
IM YIK PAN . HO WING TSUN AND OTHERS.
In this action the plaintiff claimed from the defendants the sum of 8220, alleged amount due
for wages.
Mr. Almada e Castro appeared for the plain tiff and Mr. P. W. Goldring (of Messrs Brutton, Hett and Goldring) for the defendants.
Mr. Almada stated that the defendants, who before constituted a company, wound up on the 19th June, at which time four months salary was due to the plaintiff. The amount has not yet been paid, but the defendants paid $50, one month's salary. into Court in settlement. and subsequently offered $100, which the plaintiff refused to accept.
After hearing the evidence His Honour gave judgment for the plaintiff for 8100), without
costs.
Tuesday, 25th July,
'
i
!
67
G. Souza stated that he signed the promissory note produced on the 2nd February. When the plaintiff called to collect the money ho (defendant) told him he was not ready to pay but gave him $9 interest and $5 on account He did not get a receipt for the amounts.
His Honour--When you pay money you must either endorse it on the back of the pro- missory note or get a receipt. If you do not you will have to pay over again.
Defendant-I gave the plaintiff $15 and asked for a receipt, but he would not take it.
His Honour-I cannot help you. Judgment for the plaintiff with costs, and that will be a losson to you to get a receipt when you pay any } money.
|
Defendant-Will Your Honour allow me to pay so much a month?
His Honour-That is what you failed to de before. You can arrange with the plaintiff.
TSANG HENG 2. CHAN SHIU HUNG. The plaintiff, a trader, carrying on business at Market Street, claimed from the defendant the sum of $201.63 on account of money lent.
Mr. R. Harding appeared for the plaintiff. The defendant did not appear, so His Honour gavo judgment for the plaintiff with costs.
Wednesday, 26th July.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE),
CAROLINE SCHMIDT v. A. MCURAE. The plaintiff, who carries on the business of a gunsmith at Nos. 5 and 6 Beaconsfield Arcade claimed from the defendant the sum of $82, due on goods sold and delivered.
Mr. R. F. C. Master (of Messrs. Johnson,
Stokes and Master) represented the plaintiff.
The defendant admitted the purchaso and receipt of the goods, but said he had paid the amount due in full. This the plaintiff denied.
Defendant-I gave the money to a friend of mine to pay to Mrs. Schmidt, and ho got a receipt for me.
His Honour-Where is that receipt? Defendant-I have lost it.
His Honour-It is clear that the money is due to the plaintiff, and equally clear that the defendant has not paid her. Judgment for the plaintiff with costs.
Thursday, 27th July.
IN APPELLATE JURISDICTION,
BEFORE SIR F. T. PIGGOTT (CHIEF Justice) AND ME. A G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE),
TANG TSZ U . THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. In the matter of the claim of Tang Tsz U. to the land in the New Territories, being claim C. A. Survey district No. 4, and in the matter of the New Territories Land Court Ordinance 1900 to 1903.
This was a notice of motion to dismiss the petition of the appellant for leave to appeal to the Privy Council.
The Attorney General-I appear for the respondent. but there is evidently no appearance of the appellant. I will call a witness to prove the service of the motion, or I will undertake to file an affidavit of service of the motion.
The Puisne Judge-We had better hear the witness.
Tsok En Kau declared-I am a clerk to the Crown Solicitor. On the 18th July I served a of the notice of motion in this matter on a copy Chinese clerk in the office of Messrs. "Ewens and Harston, also an affidavit of Mr. Bowley's.
The Attorney General-The affidavit on the
account of becoming violent and insulting BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE), file refers to the granting to the appellant of
the manager-The way he looked after the hotel was sufficient to dismiss him, and if the other directors had had their way he would have gone sooner.
Oh, I see, you are his friend-No, I am not in the habit of making friends with subordinates in the hotel.
The dissatisfaction of the directors was not the only reason for writing the letter of the 1st June, was it?-The man was dismissed on account of the dissatisfaction of the directors, and not on account of the row he had with the manager.
LAL SINGH v. G. a. socza AND ANOTHER
watchman at the
The plaintiff, who is a Wongneicheong recreation ground. claimed from the defendants, assistants in the Hong. Kowloon Wharf an‹l Godown kong and Company, the sum of $150 due on a promissory
note.
M. J. Stephens appeared for the plaintiff. who declared that in return for the loan of $150 the defendants gave him a promissory note for the amount; S6 interest had been paid on the loan, but no money on account.
provisional leave to appeal to His Majesty in his Privy Council against the decree pronounced herein by the full court on the 31st March, 1905. Such leave was granted subject to the performance of special conditions. One of those conditions was that the appellant should pay security to the satisfaction of the Registrar in the sum of £300 sterling, and that he should within three mouths from the date of filing the petition for leave to appeal, that is to say, on the 10th April. 1905, take out all appoint
The court granted the ments necessary. appellant leave to appeal exparte within three