1911-06-14 — Page 3

Page

SUPREME COURT.

Tuesday, June 13th,

IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.

THE HONGKONG DAILY PRESS, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14TH, 1911.

In reply to the statement of defence plaintiff denied all allegations of misconduct, and said that own had be been guilty of such alleged minecindust, ho was nevertheless by the express terms of the agreement of the 8th "Angust,

service of the defendant for the full term of the greed period of service: subject only to just and reasonable suspension of salary.

which

might be Baggested by the plaintiff

permanent engagement-suddenly become! It is not true that on the night of the 10th that he was employed to stand drinks in the the parson

you describe. him you found Mr. Oxberry with the bar takings in bar. Mr. Polter said he would be the last to to be and trost you with the greatest is hand-It is true,

Was it not part of the arrangement between suggest that because a man took too much disrespect Mr. Oxberry had board that I had yourself and Mr. Oxborry that you took alter- drink at Christmas he ought to be dismissed been in the hotel business, and wanted to come nate nights on duty PYR

if he looked after my interests.

And as a matter of fact the night of the 10th

BEFORE HIS HONOTE SIR FRANCIS Pravor paragraph 7, entitled to be retained in the summarily. The troabla recurred at New Year, to me to learn it. I told him I would teach him April was your night on du'y ?—It was his.

(CHIEF JUSTICE),"

HOTEL MANAGER SUES PROPRIETOR. The seti brought by J. H. Oxbṣrry against F. Raichuman, proprietor of the Grind Hotel, tä recover $10,367, damages suffered by the plaintiff by reason of the defondant's breach of contrast of employment dated 9th August, 1910, was opened before his Honour the Chief Justice and a special jury composed of Me sre. A. R. Lowe (foroman), J.G. B. Bayor, W. A. Dowley, W. S. Bailey, E. A. Ram, W. Logan

and D. W. Craddock.

{

Bir Henry Berkeley' sald the reply raised a question of law which his Lordship might wish setted before the case went to the jury,

His Lordship What is the point?

7

*. Can you give me any reason why this well behaved man should suddenly become the in- solent, Inanbordinate and domineering creature you say he was? He was,

to

Is it not a fact that Mr. Oxberry complained o you on one occasion that the Chinese runner

alexmor? Yes, once.

failed to call him on the arrival of a P. and 0.

Gontally, I put it to you that Mr. Oxborry has been civil and obliging and careful and

I want to know what caused this metamer.atientive to all the guests in your hotel - Yes Don't give an unwilling yes. It is so, isa't phosis-He got too big.

It is so when he was sober, but when he was drunk the guests in the hotel did not sea

Aswolled head, eh? Yes.

Or in other words he got too big for his bim and I had to attend to matters. boots - hot is right.

This conduct must have been very noticeable to everybody: you crawling about as the servant while he was going about as the master --A lot of people may never have noticed it.

I want to be quite plain with you, and to put it clearly and distinctly: yon here not spoken truly when you related the facts you allege of

part of Oxberry ?—I have.

||

I put it to you that Mr. Oxharry has never done a single thing in the hotel adverse to your inter ra and its management, and that it is not

irue.

true what you sail with respect to his intoxication and insolen -It

Mr. Potter then re-examined:

Is your wife in the C lony now P-No, sho

leít

t about the 22nd

Pril

Is there oce partiols of trath in the sugges ton that it was because Mrs. Roichana wanted you to do so that you have trumped up this case

It is not true.

Sir Henry Berkeley said the defardant died allegations of misendnet entirely, but ho sentonded that in any case this was not an agreement that could be terminated by one party lecause of this m feconduct of the other for any ravon whatsoever except that stated Sir Henry Barkeley, K. C., instructed by Mr | in alsuse of the agreement, Sir T. W.- Uguring (of Mesara, Gobirior, Barlow Henry contended that the plaintiff and the & Morrell), appeared for the plaintiff, and do defendunt had on tared into an agreement which fendant was represented by Mr. Eldon Potter, placed them altogether on a different footing to who was instructed by Mr. J. H. Gardiner. that of master and servant. This was not an said be wasn't a coole, he was mahagor, insolence, intoxication and disobedience on the and come int, the box and perjaved yourself

Mr. Potter said there was a preliminary point action for wrongful dismissal, but an action for za to

who ought to begin in this

image for the breach of an oxpress agreoment, case. This was an 'action

for wrongful Sir Hary submitted tast this agreement limit- dismissal and be appeared for the defendant;ed the power of Mr. Rish to terminate it and admitted the agreement. They admitted to the happening of one contingency, and one everything, but the defendant said he was only, namely, this inability of Mr. Osberry and justified in the dismissal because the plaintiff his wit through illuoes, caused by their own had misconducted himself. That was the only misconduct, to perform their duties for the issue which the jury had to try, and the onus

space of one month. On that contingency, was on bita (Mr. Potter). There was a point and on giving one month's notice, the engage. of low Sir Henry Berkeley was to raise upon ment ould he terminated. the pleadings, and subject to that he submitted

- he was ontilled to begia.

Ilis Lordship - The pass is admisted ozeept justification P

Mr. Potier-That is so.

Sir Henry Barkeloy-We will deal with that point directly.

Mr. Potter-My friend esaust open.

Sir Henry Berkeley-I am not going to open.

I am going to read the pleadings. This is an action for broach of contract, in which the plaintiff claims special damages, or in the alternative ordinary damages for bronch,

|

but that might also be the result of the festive season. Towards the end of Fausary thegizin. tiff caused considerable tranblé,

He had been aboard a P. and O. steamier and reinrned to the hotel about 11 o'clock in the more ing obriccely under the influence of drink. Mr. Reichman warned him, but instead of keeping off it the plaintiff remained in the bar of the hotel until about 2 p.m., drinking for the

Ha became so in greater part of the time. toxicated that he had to go to his room, and remained there until seven that evening. A runner was not employed to do that. An about 7 or 7.15 p.m., when Mr. Orberry reappeared, Mr. Reichmaus took him into bis private office and spoke to him quite quietly, whereat Mr. Oxberry became extremely oxcited,

and practically told Mr. Reichmann that he was going to do what he liked. What Mr. Oxberry mill was intended to cover, "You can't get on without me now. I will do just as I like. I am not a coolie, and I am not head waiter." The next incident of importance occurred during the Hongkong Races, on February 14th. Mr. Fatter did not know whether that could be called a festive occasion. He did not know whether people were entitled to take more then was good for them during race week, but at any rate the manager of a hotel was not entified to, and that was what the plaintiff did on this occasion. Ho got back to the hotel at ns-6.30 and remained drinking up till 9.30 pm, when he had to go to his room, and did no work for the rest of the evening. Mr. Reichmann spoke to the plaintiff again next morning, and Mr. Oxborry intimated that he would try to be a better boy in future. Time went on and the

Was still taking clause plaintiff

more liquor than the defendant. liked to nos him tak being, but still things carried or until Sunday, 9th April. On that afternoon, after

His Lordship-Is drunkenness an illaess co- casional by his own miscondust?

Sir Henry Berkeley-No.

His Lordship Is it an illness of a serious ture lading a month?

Sir Henry Berkeley-It would depend The previous part of cause 7 covers intoxication.

Hía Lordship-It is not usual Call drunk ennossan illness ?

deals

may

Sir Henry Berkeley-No: this 7 is composed of two parts, The first part

with. what called ordinary drunkenness, disobedianes and neglect, or casual and cocasional derelictions of duty. That was to be punished by suspension of salary during the neglect, refusal or inability. The sesond part of the clauss provides for what is to oemr if there is something more than an occasional or casual lapse from duty. There it

Mr. Reichmann had had tiffin, he went into the

I am putting it straight to you that the charges you have made against him are merely an excuse that you now bring forward because of your breaking the agreement with him on account of what took place between your wife and his wife? That is not so.

You dismissed him because his conduct was detrimental to the interests of your hotel ?— That is a

Let us test bat. The first instance you give is on Christmas Day, 1910. You say that he was drank all day?—He started to drink in the morning, and he was drank in the evening.

I understand that though you reprobate, that conduct, being the first time, you passed it over?-Yes,

INTIMATIONS

The Food Question

J. G. Grant, a witness for the plaintiff who EVER was leaving that afterneon, was next called. He said to was at the theatre on the night of the 10th of April, and in the interval went to tha

rand Hotel and entered the lounge. Orberry was sitting there, and was absolutely sober. When witness left the hotel again at 11.30 Mr. Oxberry was still sober. Cross-examined by Mr. Potter:

Mr.

Wan Mr. Üzborry as sober of 11.30, as he was

OF

THINK

BEST

at 10.30. That is a peculiar queion to ask. PROVISIONS,

More or less Phat is a funny way of putting a question.

Cannet you answerk-I don't quite under- stand-what you are driving at. It is quite plain that if I had a drink with Mr. Oxbarry he wonld not be as sober at 11.30 us ho was at 10.3. Was Mr Oxberry, as sober at 11.30 as ha was at 10.307- He was quite sober.

How many drinks had he with you Twe, în the interval of one bour.

The next incident you pire was on New Year's Any with anybody else?-No. day. You said he was intoxicated and unable to You kept with him all the while ?--Yes. perform his duties. That was the second time-Mr. Oxberry was not at the Theatre Royal for Then I may take it from your evidence that

either intortalf-I know nothing about the theatre.

-Yea

If that was true, why did you not diamiss him then? Because it was Now Year's day, and anyone might get intoxicated.

You were willing to let the interests of your hotel perish because the manager was drunk on New Year's day I looked after the business

myself --

During the period he was with he did

kau not go to the theatre ?—No.

A. B. Crew, father-in-law of the defendant, anid he ww Mr. Oxberry under the influence of drink at Christmas time and agalu at New Year. Cn the first day of the races the plaintiff was "pretty full," and witness advised him not to go into the dining room. On April 9th at about 2.30 in the afternoon, while witnes was having tiffin with his son-in law and daughter, the former went into the bar and he (witness)

Conueul then road the pleadings. The statement of claim set out that by AD agreement in writing made between tho defendant and the plaintiff, the de. fendant agreed to employ the plaintiff as manager of bie business for the term of three years from August 8th, 1910. The plaintiff is provided that if, from the misconduct of the could go to. That was not the conduct benn you would have dismissed him ?—I would heard a great disturbance. He went to see what

month,

defondant. Pofondant agreed to pay to the plaintiff a salary of $200 Д and would provilo him and his wife with free board nad lodging and with liquid refreshment

parties, they should make themselves unable to porform their duties for the space of a month. then Mr. Reichmann is at liberty to terminate the enggemrat.

His Lordship-That amounts to this: that his agreement cannot be terminated unless he is drunk for a month ?-

J

private bar, where he found the plaintiff. Mr. Oxberry there and then commenced to abase him with referohes to a pair of curtains, and onded up by tolling Mr. Reichmann in very

I put it to you quite straight that the plain plain language that both he and his hotel tiff was not intoxicated on that day. If he had which one could tolerate from an employeo. not. On April 10th the defendant told the plaintif

The third occasion you give is the end of that he wished a temporary bar to be erected in January. Why did you not dismiss him than the Theatre Royal, where the Bandon Co-That was the first occasion on which I thought were playing, and that plaintiff was to look after it was really time to take ressurss, and I told that bar. Mr. Reiobmann went to the theatre, him I would not have it. and for a temporary bar he saw a counter which theco parts covered with clothing while on the other part were a few bottles and glasses. Bat Mr. Oxberry was not looking after it. Daring, the second interval Mr. Reichmann saw the plaintiff lean. ing against the temporary har smoking and having a drink. That was the way he was

BLA

When he said he would do as he liked, why didn't you diruten him I thought I could taro him round. I wanted to give him plenty of chances to get on as manager,

We

*

WINES

and

SPIRITS.

H. RUTTONJEE

& SON,

HONGKONG.

AND

was going on, and heard Mr. Osterry say that GOLD he was Bager, that he had given an order for cartains to be sent, and that he would take be carried out. He also said that while he was good cero that any orders he gave would manager there he would do as he pleased, and that the business could go to and Reich-

with it. Cross-examined by Sr. Henry Berkeley: May I ask you why, if it is true that Mr.

mana

Orberry was drank aml incapable at a ferent

agreed to serve the defendant in the capacity of zananger, and to perform his duties ander the direction and order of the defendant for the term of three years, and to perform all lawfut orders relating to the business of the defendant, and to be diligent and faithful in the discharge of his dutica. The plaintiff further agreed with the defendant that the wife Sir Henry Berkeley-Ho'may be ill for a of the plaintiff should, during the term of three month. The words of the agreement are, any years, employ herself in and about the mid | case arising from his own fault." Proceeding, business," and the plaintiff agreed that he and Sir Henry said the only thing for the Quart in his wife would devote their whole time to the do was to construo the agreement according to service of the defendant, and would not be the fact of the language used. On the interested, employed or concorned in any other principe that where the parties enter into an business, and would not divulge or disclose any express agreement with respect to a partion. Bupervising. When defendant returned to diarias him on that occasion P Ho came to me was a man who had lived in Hongkong for a of the secret concerus or affairs of the lar subject, no implied agreement can be the hotel he found a row going on outside the

inferrel,

or can b. imported into the door. between the watchman aud & European, agreement between the parties. The agreement and on entering he saw Mr. Orberry sitting there with bland indifference. Defendant closed was a perfectly valid one. Às to whether the construction was adequate or not was not for the hotel he was astonished to and the bar open the bar at the theatre, and when he got back to to the extent of 830 a month. It was expressly the Court. The Court did not consider the and a party of strangers dining in the dining. agrood between the plaintiff and the defondant adequacy of the consideration. Under the plead

room. In other words, there was a breach of the that if the plaintiff and his wife" should atings nothing was alleged except occasional licensing law, for, it was after midnight. In any time "wilfully neglect or refuse" or become lapses of intoxication and occasional misconduct uuable through illness accasioned by his or her and wilful disobedience, and all that catas under the bar sitting down dazed with drink, Mr. own misconduct" to comply with the provisions the neglect of duty provided for in clause 7.

Keichmann saw Mr. Oxberry, and the latter of the agreement or toobey "any lawful orders"

had the bar takings in bis hands. After that, of the defendant, it should be lawful for the

Mr. Roiobmant, dismissed the defendant. defendant to suspend the salary of the plaintiff

Frederick Reichmann, called and sworn, gave * during auch noglect, refusal or inability

evidence on the lines of his Counsel's opening aforesaid,

I put it to you that what beppound was this: Cross-examinied by Sir Henry Berkeley:

Mr. Oxberry went and complained to of has been drinking and misbehaving himselt, masted on your ordering Mrs. Reichmann If it is true that from January Mr. Oxberry the violent and opprobrious language seed to Ms. Oxberry by Mrs. Reichmann, aud ho treating you as a servant and anting as proprie not to speak in that way to bis wife. What do tor, why did you stand that condoot so long you say in that Mr Orberry was waiting in Because I did not want to "sack" the man, the bar for me, and when I entered he mid

What do you mean? Do you mean to say that I tried to pull him round. It does not do a Mis. Reichmann is going to have something to hotel any good to get rid of a man every other say to my wife. I am the manager, and I am day, and it is not possible to get man every not going to take any orders from you or sur other day.

body else, and in future you and your hotel can

to

an

It was

His Lordship-You cannot contend that a man has not s right to dismiss his servant for drankeness.

Sir Henry Barkeley - The question whether

Atuferment. further expressly drankeness is covered by the words " wilfully agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant neglect to comply" is for your Lor ship to that in case of the illness of the plaintiff or bis conside; but I do not mind it going to the jury wife from any canse from his or her own fault, I submit, under this agreement, the Common which should be of such a severe rature as to Law right has been subsituted by the power to roader him or her unable for one month to per-fine by way of suspension of salary and to form his or her duties, the defendant right term into the agreement allogether in the event terminate the engagement of the plaintif upon of illness lasting a mouth. I subunit that judg- one month's rotice in writing, without payment ment should be given for the plaintiff and the of salary beyond the date of the said notice. question of damages gone into,

His Lordship What I want to know is, is there any authority for calling dronkenuvas

Mr. Potter-There is no authority for that,

The plaintiff and his wife served the defendunt Esithfully and diligently until the 11th April On that day the defendunt, by lotter ass! addressed to the plaintiff, antamarily determined the agreement without stating any reason. He but there is authority for this proposition: refused to allow the plaintiff to continue in his Every written contract between a master and service, refused to pay his salary, and generally servantcontains an implied term of a right on refused to perform the terms of the agreement, the part of a master to dismiss a servunt for By the bresal of the said agreement the misconduct; and in the alternative a right on plaintiff had lost the samount of the agreed salary | the pad of a servant to leave his master and to

And so you put up with conduet which amounted to year being treated as a servant in your hotel P-Until the last few days.

What you call "the little dispate" between. Four wife and Mrs. Oxberry, took place on the 9th-Yes.

And you sent the letter of dismissal within two days after ? Yes,

* I put it to you that the real cause of your dismissing Mr. Orberry was the fact of Mrs.

SILVER

[50

WATCHES

SWISS

AND

ELGIN

SUPERIOR

time, he was not dismissed P-I cannot answer You gave bian bia two bites, and you gavey Kelly, clerk at the Grand Hotel, and two him a third as it were. Then there was

That is a matter for my son-in-law. Η fourth occasion during the race week, when you Chinese witnesses gave evidence, and the page say he was drunk and could not attend to his for the defendant closed. daties T put it to you that ibat is absolutely

Sir Herkeley then outlined the case ENGLISH,

Henry untrue. And if it is true, why didn't you for the plaintiff. He ptated that Kr. Oxberry talked it over, and he said he would never do considerable time. Ha was a decent, hard- it again.

working, cir Iman to those who suployed him, You never said a word of that in your and he was ahont the end of hat year in the examination,i-thief?

employ of the Hongkong Hotel, where he had Mr. Potter-That was my fault. I omitted been for twelve years, and where he bere a most that hat mentioned it in opening.

excellent character. He was approached by Mr. Sir Henry Berkeley (o witness) Why Reichmann, who admitted that he had heard Probably I forgot it, did you not say that in examination in-chief that he was a good man, to be manager ard rauner for the Grand Hotel, which Reichmana Can you name anybody who was present when had bought. Mr. Oxberry, although he had ser this repetitant au came and made this admired for truly years, had no written agreement. sion and confession I always talk to my "for any definits term with the Hongkong Hotel manager in privata I put if to you

it is not true that he made a people, and although his tenure was pretty well confession and

was repentan! !-I say it is from. offered a three years' certain enga ement with QUALITY Now we come to the 9th April. I put is to board and lo gings for himself and his wife. you

it is not true that on that day the plaintiff that he should be glad to take it. Moreover, accosted you in the hotel bur, in the presence of the position to was about to occupy was a higher d abusive language and better one than ho occupied at the Hong- witness and servants, and

kung Hotel. He was to be not only runner, but you?-It is true.

manager. And in addition to geiting a com- mission as runner be won to get a distingt, Axel

was a decidedly valuable addition to his sal- and certain salary of $200 a month for a term of thres yeare. He was also to get what ary, a shelter for his head, and it was not only & shelter, but a comfortable place with good food and lodging for bingolf and bis wife for three According to the cire for the

to

Is it not a fact that Mrs. Reichmann and Mrs. Oxberry had had a quarrel ?—A little dispate.

Mrs. Briohnson is a lady with a hot temper, is she not? I don't think so.

a

fixed, it was not unuatural, when he wEK

hares

get

and other emolument from the date of the brings action for damages if the master treas Reiohmann and Mrs. Oxberry had had that of cross-examination and has nothing whatiser passengers could he obtained for the hotel.

breack to the end of the agreed period, and the [him wongfully. plaintiff alimed the full amount of the agreed His Lordship-I am afraid, Sir Henry, your quarrel, and that you are acting under your salary and emolument as and by way of liquidated point hils, damages. Particulars of the plantiff's claim were

Mr. Pofter, in opening, asid the one isvas the as follows:-28 months' salary at $207 mouth jury had to fad was whether the defendant was $5,500; 28 months' board and loding for justifiel or not in what he did. The pininti plaintiff and his wife at $150 a month÷84,200; † from September 1st. 1910, up till the 11th April, 23 menths' less of commission on passengers at this yor, was imployed by the defendant as a $20 per month $550. Total, 810,360.

wife's influence? That is not so.

You approached Mr. Oxberry at the time you engaged him?-le came into the bar and I approached him:

to do with Mrs. Oxberry.

MOVEMENTS

Chas. J. Gaupp

& Co.,

ALEXANDRA BUILDINGS.

defendant, the Plaintif, who up to this time had bees a docent, civil-poken, obliging man, suddenly developed viclent behaviour aud nat- rare ns.cordoct. Instead of being the decent held a port sandy-going man who for twelve gramsh in the hongkong Hotel ho suddenly became & drunkard-got blind drank, as Mr. Reilimera said-longed about the hotel, and took the tar takings and held them in his bands so that Guyone ecould take them from him. The plaintif Do you resenter on eccasion some the suddenly developed that extraordinary change. weaks after the bowling match between the

Why? Because he was supposed to Hongkong and the German Clubs when see swelled head from the fact of having letterer German gentlemen were at tiffa that your wife imself by becoming a manager ander this agre got in a great temper and threw tome plates ment. Now, the true story was that Mr. Ozb-ry and things at your feet I don't reuetuber i in no wise altered his behaviour. He went His Lord-hip-That in oxceeding the bounds regularly to every steamer from which likely

There was not a jot of greand for questioning his activity and his diligence in that part of his duty, and the only evidence that could he brought against him was that of a probably bind yanth whom Mr. Oxberry diemirged. and to whom he refused to ive a character. WHY GO TO The plaintiff would deny severally and listinctly he allegations of misconduct alleged against kim, and he would say that it was not true that be was intoxicated at Christmas or New Year time. It was not trua, as testified by the defendant and another witness, that Mr. Osberry down with the war either sitting down or har takings is his hands, Counsel had to say that the whole story was a tinge of falsehoods. Mr. Oxberry was not drunk, and he did not take but Mr. Reichmanau took them the bar takings, himself It was not true that Mr. Oxberry was guilty of the miscondnet laid against him. The BECAUSE wede trouble was caused between two women. Cherchez les femmes and you will find the cause. Mr. Oxberry did not say that the defendant sud his hotel could go to, but he told hi distinctly and positively that he would not permit his wife to be incalted by Mrs. Reichmann,

Sir Henry Berkeley The defendant sayahin wife has not a violent temper. I am entitled to prove it.

His Lordship-You are going absolutely beyond the bounda

Sir Henry Berkeley--With great reaport I

He was then employed as runner at the am not. Hongkong Hotel? That is so.

He had been so employed for upwards of twelve years?-I believe that to be so.

His Lordship-I rule the question onl Sir Henry Berkeley will ask your Lord ship to make a note of that.

then

runner and manger of the Grand Hotel. In It was alleged in the defence that certain July last year Mr. Reichmann casas into contact

His Loedsirip- I should be sorry to have to terme of the agreement set out in the statement with the plaintiff, and the upshot of the He had no written a reement with the put down on my note that you even asked the of claim were not** expressly "agreed as stated negotiations was that Mr. Reichmana agreed to Hongkong Hotel --I don't think so.

question Bir And that was the ändacement you held out to

Honry continued the cross-examina- Dofwudnut admitted (but plaintiff entered his employ the plaintiff as his manager and as

tion: Counsel did not know whather him to come to you: that you would give him « service on the 8th Augus, and that he caused runnat

I put it to you that your wife had been most his solicitor to write the letter of the 11th Apr the plaintífi intended to suggest that three years' certain engagement P-That is 50. violent in her innguage towards Mrs. Oxberry giving the plaintiff notice that the acres Mr. Reichmann had some underhaud motive in Is it not a fact that the Hongkong Hotel and that Mr. Oxberry complained to you and ment was terminated. Defendant said that dis:nising him. Mr. Oxberry was employed and management gave Mr. Oxberry a most excellent asked you to restrain your wife from interfering with his wife? My wife nerer bees strenuous after the contract and before the alleg. commenced work on 1st September last year, character I have met heard it from the Houg language.

Mr. Osberry told you that his wife had ed broach the plaintiff misconducted himself For the first three months defendant had abso kong Hotel people. by wilfully disobeying the reasonable orders of lately no fault to find with Me, Oxberry, and Do you deny that Mr. Oxberry left the complained that Mrs. Reichmann had used the defendant by frequently becoming in everything was doue as ho hoped it would be Hongkong Hotel with a most excellent character violent language to her?—Yes, in e

Never mind the manner at present. And be toxicated, by using abusive language to the done. But at Christmas time the trouble com.in every respect?-I daresay he did.

nakes you to tell Mrs. Reichmana sot to interfere defendant, and by constantly neglecting his menced. Then the plaintiff took more drink Can you give us any reasonable explanation with his wife F-I could not say yes or no, he duties. Defendant therefore discharged plain than was good for him; Previously be teld the why Mr. Ozberry should-after holding his cause Mr. Oxbarry was in too much of a temper. If you cannot tell you eviden ly did not listen tiff from the service, which was the alleged deferlent that he was either a teetotaler or prac post at the Hongkong Hotel for twelve years to what the man was saring Yes, I did. But breach of the agreement.

tically one. This was important, because it) and only leaving rit because you offered him I am not sure whether he said that or not.

manner.

His Lordship-And that he was to remain on earth for that purpose?

[256

N. LAZARUS

FOR YOUR GLASSES ?

You will receive Fair Treat-

ment.

A Careful and Intelligent

Examination

We have a Sound Opte Reason behind every Lon

N. LAZARUS,

OPTICIAN, CORNEL

·D'Aquiiar Sr., HONGKONG,

Sir Henry Berkeley-No, he did not say that at all. I don't understand the allusion. The OPTHALMIC wife is not supposed to be an augel, is she?

At this stage the Court rose until this morning,

(262