i
66
advisers before they raised the point of not being partners, and that issue was to be tried to-day.
Mr. Pollock-I can say of my own knowledge that some of my friend's statements are incor- rect,. One of the solicitors came t then this defence was raised.
me, and
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
performance of his duties as outlined in the agreement?-They were dissatisfied.
Did you have a discussion about it-Several. What was the result?-The result was that the other directors asked me to take the matter in Land. They said they had done nothing themselves as he had been engaged by me, and they preferred to wait till I returned. I waited for about two months to see for myself, and found that, in my opinion, the food was not improved: the service was the same.
Generally speaking, did you find any appreci- able improvement?-With the exception of a few sauces, I do not think there was any im- provement whatever.
When you found this, at the end of two months, what course did you pursue?--I did nothing further until the winter.
The Chief Justice-I do not think it is relevant, Mr. Ferrers thought it would be if he could prove the point was not raised until the third adviser had been consulted. The delay in bringing up the defence was explained by the domestic tragedy which had called them away. The evidence he proposed to call was somewhat lengthy. During the time the firm was carrying on Lusiness, a fire occurred which destroyed the books and papers, which would have proved beyond doubt who the partners were. However, the safe of the firm which had been in the hands of the Court officials had been opened, and documents of material value to the issue had been found.brought up at various Board meetings, after These, with the oral evidence, would place the question beyond doubt. Money had been lont to the firm on the representations of the two defendants that they were partners and he would call the senior partner of the Tak Heung to prove that the defendants were his co-partners.
Evidence was led and the case adjourned.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
ERNST WOHLFARHT V. HONGKONG
HOTEL CO., LD.
The hearing of this action, in which the plaintiff claimed from the defendant company the sum of $1,000 for alleged wrongful dismis al, was continued.
Mr. R. F. C. Master (of Messrs. Jobnson, Stokes and Master) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. H. W. Looker (of Messrs. Deacon, Looker and Deacon) represented the defendant company.
For the defence Mr. Looker called Mr. E, Osborne, a director of the hotel company.
In March, 1903, you went home to England
Yes.
Had you previously discussed the question of engaging a chef with the other directors before going home-Yes.
And it was arranged that you were to get
one ?--Yes.
As a result the present agreement was entered into with the plaintiff?—Yes.
Tell us what took place at your interview with the plaintiff?-He came to my lodging, and we had a conversation which lasted about three-quarters of an hour, in which I explained to him exactly what was required. I told him we did not want a mau to come and cook himself, as our Chinese staff was quite capable of doing that; but we wanted an experienced chef, not only to make things better, but to keep the Chinese up to the mark. I explained to him the circumstances of life in Hongkong, the heat in summer, the probable opposit on of the Chinese, and every other drawback I could think of. I told him he would be under the direct orders of the manager and that so long as he performed bis duties to the satis- faction of the directors, he would practically be left alone. If he did not fulfil the expectations of the directors he would be told so, and given an opportunity of remedying matters; then if he still continued not to give satisfaction, he would be dismissed. He appeared to be anxious to come. I told him that our agents in London would communicate with him, a d the inter- view ended.
Who drew up the agreement?—I drafted it and sent it on to the agents in London.
Did you clearly explain to the plaintiff at this interview that if he did not carry out his duties in connection with the hotel bis agree.
ment terminated Most clearly. I made
special mention of it.
Can you say whether or not at that interview plaintiff clearly understood this?-He clearly understood it. At least, he said so.
You engaged him practically to superintend the kitchen department, not so much to cook? Yes, and he arrived here in September. I arrived the following March.
When you arrived did you find your co-
What did you do then I again watched matters closely and found that there was still cause for dissatisfaction, and the matter was
which messages were sent to the manager (Mr. Haynes) about the chef. Until March or April I never spoke to the chef. When I returned from Home I suggested he should attend the Board meetings in case he had any suggestions to offer for improvements to his part of the duties.
And he used to attend ?--Yes.
D'd be make any suggestions-He never made a remark, and as it was useless for him to attend we did not ask him to come again.
About what time was it when you began personally to go into the pantry ?-About March of this year when we found representa- tions to the chef through the manager were ignored.
Had you made many representations before that ?-Several. AL almost every
Board meeting the manager was instructed to convey some message or other to the chef.
Was that message ever taken any notice of ?- Practically ignored every time, as were the messages sent by the acting manager, aud ally the Board deputed me to see him myself. This was about March or April.
Prior to that had you been in the pantry, kitchen or other part of the chef's department? I had never been in the kitchen except on my rounds on Saturday afternoons, but when the directors requested me to investigate I went every day at one o'clock and saw the raw food which the chef had bought that day.
What did you find about it -On several occasions I found it was unfit to come into the hotel.
Did you point it out on these occasions to the chef-I did.
Did you find it led to improvement --No. Bad food still continued to come.
Was this bad food confined to one description of article or extended to all the provisions? It was practically extended to all the market
provisions.
Did you continue your supervision ?—I con- tinued until one day the cook flew into a pas- sion. and practically told me I knew nothing about it. He was then called before the meet.
ing. and told he must either accept my decision or say be would not. He said he would accept it.
With reference to the suggestion and vegetable books, what reason was there for such books being started -After I had been de- pated to supervise they were both started with the express purpose of placing on record points on which we were dissatisfied.
If the directors were satisfied, would these books ever have been started?—No.
Apart from the food, did you ever send message: to the cook about the way the meals were served-Yes, and practically no notic› was taken of them.
Finally, I think he was dismised the day after he had the row with Mr. Davies ?—Yes.
|
1
1.
¦
[July 29, 1905.
were appointed to investigate?-Because the
manager,
whole staff come under the directions of the
Is the manager the person through whom directors always have their messages conveyed-Invariably.
the
Was it
to have
seen
possible for you the Chinese instead of expressing your dis- satisfaction to the chef?-1 could have, but wouldn't ignore the chef, who was in charge.
Do you consider the chef did or did not fail in the duties for which he was specially engaged? -I consider he failed
With regard to his conduct in Mr. Davies' case, do you think that is enough to justify bis dismissal-I do, as a conflict like that between the chef and the manager is dangerous to the hotel's interests, and it would be impossible to maintain discipline if that sort of thing went on unchecked.
Do you consider the plaintiff know tho directors were not satisfied with the manner in which he was carrying out his duties?—I think
he know.
In cross-examination-How long have you been a director of the hotel P-Since 1893,
You occupy some other position in the Colony as well-Yes.
Has it been your practice since you have been a director to personally superintend the kitchen-It has not.
How much of your time do you, as a rule, give to the concerns of the Hongkong Hotel?. About ten minutes a day.
Does the amount of attention you give to the hotel call for any comment from shareholders in the Hongkong and Kowloon Wharf and Godown Company P-I cannot say.
When you engaged the plaintiff in England what did you mean to engige ?—A chef,
If the chef was to ob y the manager's orders, why was not a claus to the effect included in You drafted the agreement, his agreement. did you not?--I did.
And you put all the terms in on which the plaintiff was engaged No. I did not. There
are a lot of terms which are self-evident.
Did you think it self-evident he should be a housewife -I don't know what you mean by a
housewife.
When you came back to the Colony the plaintiff said you shook hands with him, and expressed your pleasure that he had given satis
faction to the directors in the meantime -That I shook hands with him is probably correct; that I told him the directors were satisfied is untrue.
Did you say they were dissatisfied?—No. Why? Because it was not my place to offer any comment on his work.
Did you say anything else I have answered that.
You cannot give me an auswer?-I have already givcu you an answer. No. I didn't.
When you found things were not going to your liking. why did you not immediately communicate with the chef? I made complaint through the manager.
Did you take the chef to task at the Board meetings-Certainly.
Were the complaints serious?—It depends on what you call serious.
What do you call serious -If food is sent to table in an unfit standard, surely that is a matter of complaint. You have in your examination made it appear that I taught this man how to cook. I say that is a lie: it is misrepresented.
Why didn't you complain to the chef before?--- Because I thought it hardly fair to bring the man to task in the summer time.
Didn't you think it was your duty to warn him that he was not carrying out his duties to the satisfaction of the directors, and give him an opportunity of doing better-We told the manager to instruct the chef ou certsia matters. When you first came back the plaintiff was
Was that dismissal in consequence of the row or previous dissatisfaction?-Previous dissatisfaction which had existed for a long not in the babit of attending Board meetings ——
while.
His Honour-Was he aware of your dis- satisfaction
That is 8".
You suggested that he should be asked to attend-Yes.
What reasons had you ?-Because it was the Witness-We told the manager or assistant manager to inform him. and have every
I practice to bare assistants of the Hotel at him. reason to think they told
Ι told Board meetings. him of it myself after I was appointed to supervise.
Why didn't you have them there bafore then? You had better ask the men themselves. I was not here and decline to answer what
Can you tell us why you sent your letters directors satisfied or dissatisfied with the chef's of complaint through the manager until you cannot vouch for.
کم
5
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.