[master and servant]

Reid and Co. v. Malcolm

Consular Court, Shanghai

1864

Source: The North-China Herald &c., 3 December 1864

H.B.M. CONSULAR COURT.

Before - J. MARKHAM, Esq., H.B.M.'s Vice-Consul,

J. B. NEWBURY, C. J. SKEGGS, Assessors.

REID & Co. v. J. W. MALCOLM.

The plaintiff sought to recover Tls. 435, by which amount the plaintiff had overdrawn his account before having their [????].

The defendant admitted that he had received the account but claimed a set-off of Tls. 175 for one month's salary, which he contended was due to him on the principle that an employer could not dismiss his employee without a month's notice.  Mr. Dunn had dismissed him summarily, and that being the case was bound to give him the month's salary which was held in law to be the alternative of a month's notice.

The Court however, decided that employers had a right to dismiss their servants for misconduct; and Mr. Malcolm's dismissal had been in consequence of negligence which had put Messrs. Reid & Co. to expense.  Judgment was therefore given to the plaintiffs for the full amount claimed.