June 4, 1896.]
1st June.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE MB. T. SERCOMBE SMITH (ACTING BEFORE MR.
PUISNE JUDGE.)
A. GENSBERG V. HONGKONG HOTEL COMPANY, The plaintiff claimed $385 for wrongful dis.
missal.
LIMITED.
Mr. McBirney appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. J. Hastings (of Mr. V. H. Deacon's office) appeared for the defendant Company.
Mr. McBirney said the summons was taken out against the directors of the Company per- sonally, and he wished to substitute the name of the Company.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
for the amount of the outstanding chits and also for the bedroom he had occupied since the date, of his dismissal, but if the verdict was in favour of the defendant Company they did not wish to proceed with the set-off.
Mr. E. Osborne, one of the directors of the plaintiff was engaged after being told that he Company, was then called and he said the would be subject to twenty-four hours notice. He thoroughly understood the terms. He was paid his wages up to the date of his dismissal When dismissed he said it was very hard to be turned and also a retiring allowance of $25.
away at a moment's notice, and when told that were the terms upon which he was engaged he did not deny it.
those
Cross-examined-Witness did not think the
Company would have been a cent the worse if they had not engaged plaintiff. There was nothing to complain about in his attention to the guests. hotel ranked as high as a first class hotel in Lon- Witness could not go so far as to say that the don, such as the Trafalgar Hotel. It was the first hotel in Hongkong. He considered the arrangement was a fair one, as it was the direc- tors' duty not to burden the shareholders with Their employes longer than was necessary. duty was to the shareholders first and em. ployes last. About
Mr. McBirney said the plaintiff was a native of Norway and came to this colony from Shanghai about six months ago, when he entered into the service of the defendant Company as steward. He had had considerable hotel ex- perience, having been employed at the Astor House in Shanghai. He was taken on trial at the Hongkong Hotel at a salary of $50 a month with board and lodging.
The directors at the time of the engagement told him that if he did not suit them he would be discharged, but if he did suit them he would be kept on. a month afterwards the directors informed him that they had considered his conduct and the manner in which he had discharged his duties and had decided to raise his salary to $75 a month. About four months after that, just as the busy season had concluded, the directors told him that they did not want him any longer and that he could go about his business. He did not know the cause of this instant dismissal, as the directors had said he had not misconducted himself, and as it would be very difficult for him to get another situation he claimed a month's wages and damages.
Andrian Gensberg, the plaintiff, supported the opening statement and said he was engaged as dining room steward. He was told that if he proved suitable he would be kept on, but if he did not he would be discharged. On the 20th May he was told by the directors that they had to cut down their expenses as the summer season was coming on and guests were getting fewer. He asked to be allowed to stay in the hotel funtil he obtained another situation as he was a married man, and Mr. Parfitt said have got to get out to-morrow." He would not allow witness to take away his clothes, as he owed $25 in chits for drinks. One night there W88 2 fire in the pantry and witness Was the only man who could extinguish it. The fire lasted one hour and a suit of clothes he was wearing was damaged. He was never thanked for his services.
You
Cross-examined-He applied for the position on the 13th December last. He first saw Mr. Wilcox, and be settled matters with Mr. Osborne, who told him the terms on which he would be engaged, and said that the Company had bad trouble with their employes in the past. Wit- ness was not told that he would be subject to dis- missal at twenty-four hours' notice, but that if he was not suitable he would be dismissed. Mr Osborne did not tell him that all the em ployes were engaged subject to dismissal at a day's notice. He requested the Board to raise his salary. He did not threaten to leave. Ho said if he did not get a rise he would have to look for something else as he was a married man. When dismissed he was told that business was getting slack, and therefore a dining room steward was not required. He was paid his salary up to the date of his discharge and also a gratuity of $25. He had been occupying a bedroom in the hotel since the date of his dis- charge; therefore he was not turned out at a day's notice. He believed he owed $23.74 in chits.
at &
He did not remember that the agreement was that if the plaintiff was not suitable he would be discharged moment's notice; the words very likely were "if it suited the directors" he would be dis- charged.
Mr. Hastings, for the defence, said the plaintiff was engaged by Mr. Osborne, on behalf of the defendant Company, on the 16th December last upon special terms. The Company had had trouble with their employes and as they did not want to keep men on longer than they were wanted all the servants were engaged on the express understanding that the agreement could be terminated at twenty-four hours' no- tice on either side. The plaintiff accepted em- ployment on these terms, and on the 20th May he was no longer required as the summer season was coming on. There was a set-off against him
Mr. Parfitt gave corroborative evidence and in answer to his Lordship said the last steward was engaged upon the same terms as the plaintiff.
Mr. McBirney submitted that the plaintiff was justified in thinking that he was pretty well settled in his place after getting an in- crease, and therefore he was entitled to a month's
notice.
had to decide what were the terms upon which His Lordship, in giving judgment, said he
opinion that the claim must fail. The agree the plaintiff was engaged, and he was of
mutual one and therefore judgment must be meut to give twenty-four hours' notice was a for the defendant Company.
THE HONGKONG GENÍRAL CHAM- BER OF COMMERCE,
463.
the Chinese Special Ambassador Li Hung-chang- to Russia to subsequently visit other European Courts and endeavour to obtain an increase in the present import duties on foreign goods, a letter (tabled) was addressed to the British Minister at Peking on the 16th May, express- taken in that direction, an opportunity will be ing the hope that before any definite steps are afforded to the Chambers of Commerce interested to express their views upon any changes that may be contemplated.
Secretary stated that copies of this letter had been forwarded to H.E. the Governor, the
China Association, London, and several English
Chambers of Commerce and all the Chambers in China.
THE CONGRESS OF CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE
OF THE EMPIRE.
A circular letter from the London Chamber was read stating that the date of meeting of 8th June. the Congress had been advanced from 15th to
The following is the correspondence referred'. to:- DUTIES LEVIABLE IN JAPAN ON GOODS FROM FORMOSA. Colonial Secretary's Office,
24th April, 1896. Sir, I am directed to acquaint you for the information of the Chamber of Commerce with the following facts on the subject of the duties leviable in Japan on British-owned goods from
been transhipped at - Formosa which have Hongkong.
It was decided by the Japanese Government that from the date on which the island of
Formosa became a portion of the dominions of His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of Japan, cargo conveyed in Japanese foreign-going vessels and foreign vessels from the open ports of Japan to ports in Formosa where Imperial Customs Houses are established, or from For- mosan ports where Imperial Customs Houses are established to Japanese open ports, should be treated in the same way as cargo transported from one Japanese open port to another, and that cargo transported from Formosan ports where no Imperial Customs House is estab- lished, in respect of which satisfactory proof is produced to the Commissioner of Customs that it has been conveyed from a Formosan port, should be treated in the same manner.
At a monthly meeting of the Committee, The question has now arisen whether this held at the Chamber's room on the 28th arrangement is applicable only to direct ship- May-Present: Messrs. A. McConachie (Vice-ments between Formosa and Japan, or whether Chairman), G. B. Dodwell, N. J. Ede, N. A. Siebs, H. Smith, T. H. Whitehead, and R. C. Wilcox (Secretary).
The Minutes of the last monthly and two special meetings were read and confirmed.
•
NEW MEMBERS.
Messrs. W. G. Humphreys and Co., F. Black. head and Co., Harling, Buschmann & Menzel, Sander and Co., and Mr. Edward Robinen were elected members of the Chamber.
the above treatment can be claimed in respect of cargo, accompanied by a through bill of lading, shipped from Formosa, but transhipped at Hongkong en route for Japan.
Although the Customs charges levied on a cargo of
sugar recently shipped from Takao to Yokohama under a though bill of lading allowing of transhipment at Hongkong, and actually so transhipped, were, as a special case, and on the production of satisfactory evidence as to the origin and destination of the cargo, The Chairman proposed and Mr. Ede refunded by the Japanese Government, it is seconded, and it was unavimonsly agreed, that the considered doubtful whether the treatment Committees should be restituted as follows-accorded in this instance can be generally
Arbitration Comedian – 3. d. j (14 dng. 6. cained as a matter of right. B. Dodwell. A. Met ongerie, z.. t. 241 he N. A. Siebs. T. H. Whitebend.
NEW COMMITTEES.
Corresponding Gommifier-J. J. Bell-Irving, N. J. Ede, 1. Jackson, H. Smith.
THE WUCHOW OBSTRUCTION Cazul
Read letter from Mr. Sanderson, of Loreign Office, acknowledging recipt of Chamber's letter of 3rd Biarch calling atten. to the action of the Chinese authorities at Wüchow. fu in obstructing trade under transit pass.
PROHIBITION OF IMPORT OF CATTLE AT
SAIGON.
Read letter from Colonial Secretary announc ing receipt of telegram prohibiting import of cattle at Saigon.
DUTIES LEVIABLE IN JAPAN ON BRITISH-
OWNED GOODS FROM FORMOSA.
1 am. therefore, to request that I may be favoured, for the information of His Excellency the Governor and for transmission to the Sec-
rotary of State, with the views of the Chamber of Commerce as to whether the effect of the privilege, if claimed and accorded, would be likely to prove beneficial or otherwise to the trade of this colony.I have the honour to be, sir, your most obedient servant,
J. II. STEWART Lockhart, Colonial Secretary. The Secretary, Hongkong General Chamber of
Commerce, &o., &o., &c.
29th April, 1896. Sir, I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 24th inst. on the subject of the duties leviable in Japan on British-owned goods from Formosa which may be transhipped at Hongkong, in which after citing a case showing that on satisfactory proof of the origin and destination of the cargo being given the Cus- toms charges were refunded by the Japanese Government, though it was considered doubtful whether the treatment, then accorded could be generally claimed as a right, H.E. the Governor In consequence of the reported intention of requests the views of the Chamber as to whether
Read letter from Colonial Secretary, dated 24th April, acquainting Chamber with certain facts on the subject of the duties leviable in Japan on British-owned goods from Formosa which have been transhipped at Hongkong; also reply to same, dated 27th April.
THE IMPORT DUTIES ON FOREIGN GOODS IN CHINA.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.