356 



THE FARMER'S MAGAZINE, 



labour had been judiciously expended ; and when the contest 

 was sharp, and on nearly equal terms, we did not quite agree 

 in our views and opinions. The matter in dispute was left to 

 the arbitration of one of the competitors, who generously de- 

 cided against himself, that Mr. Wragg should be No. 1, and 

 Mr. Rogers No. 2. 



"In offering the above report and animadversions on what 

 we eaw and examined, we trust that they will be received in 

 the same spirit in which the men of the Norton Club always 

 receive good intentions." 



SUFFOLK LENT ASSIZES. 



BREACH OF CONTRACT. 



GARRETT V. WOOLNOUGH. 



This was a Special Jury case. 



Serjeant Wells and Mr. O'Malley for the plaintiff, and 

 Mr. Couch for the defendant. 



The action was brought for breach of contract. 



Mr. O'Malley havin}( opened the case, 



Mr. Garrett deposed : I am the senior partner of the firm 

 of Garrett and Sons, Leiston Works. At first I carried it 

 on myself, and then took my sons in. The defendant was 

 formerly in my father's service, and continued with me 

 down to 1855. He occupied the post of foreman over a 

 Email portion of the manufactory and salesman up to April, 

 1854. He had a salary of £150 per year and a house. In 

 November or December, 1853, the defendant reminded me 

 that the agreement terminated, and that he wanted an ad- 

 vance of salary. I agreed to advance him £50 per year. 

 He afterwards wished that the £50 should be paid fcr five 

 years in advance, to which I agreed, and an agreement was 

 drawn up. He suggested that it should be binding for ten 

 years, so that at the end of five years I should pay liim an- 

 other £250. The £250 was paid on the 6th of April. On 

 the 31st of July, 1855, the smith's foreman showed me 

 some ironwork which Woolnough had sent back, and on the 

 1st of August, as I was standing at the counting-room door, 

 the defendant came up to me, and in abusive language said 

 he would not be humbugged any longer ; he was going 

 away. I turned round and said, " What's the matter ?" 

 He was in a passion, and I told him to go home and consi- 

 der the matter. I said, " There is an agreement between 

 us, you had better look to that." On the following day I 

 sent for defendant, and he came to my counting-house, and 

 I asked him if he had considered what he said the day be- 

 fore, and he said " Yes, he was going." The 31st of July 

 was a critical period, being after the Royal Agricultural 

 Society's Show, and we had many orders, particularly in 

 defendant's department. After some conversation, I told 

 him he must pay me back the proportion of the bonus ; but 

 he laughed, and patted his hand on his pocket, and said he 

 should ]jpep it. I suggested he should go and ask adyice as 

 to that of some man of business. The day after he came 

 again, and said he had been for advice and found he must 

 return the money ; and he would pay it me if I would "ive 

 a receipt in full of all demands and cancel the a<Treement 

 I refused to take the money on these terms. (The receipt 

 which Mr. Garrett proposed reserved to himself any rights 

 he might derive under the agreement.) He would not pay 

 the money on this receipt, and went away. The defendant 

 had a son-in-law named Sudbrook in the smiths' depart- 

 ment. The defendant had been of great use to me in the 

 sale department, and after he left me my sons were obliged 

 to attend to the getting proper foremen into Woolnough 's 

 department instead of the general supervision. We tried to 

 get persons to suit us as salesmen, but could not, and we 

 l?o' ^ -7 T*^!^ commercially. I employ 6U0 or 700 hands, 

 • T °' , J °\^'i°"» were under the defendant's supervision 

 Iwould rather not state the loss, but I would have gladly 



fmpTemTu° s '^'''' ^ ^^"^^"^ ^^^""'^ ^^ ^ ""^^"^ ^^ ^^"^'" °^ 



f,nn,T"r^'^'"^'^-~^ '^°°'* ^^'""^ ^« received any damage 

 w>thoit hfrt°/ "' "' ^°^""*"- W« '"^'^^ better implements 

 without him than we ever could have done with him, but we 



It t vervfffi/u'/'"'"? department, and lost more by that. 



Show them to tih° r^i^^'f ^'^'^^'"*" '" ^^» i'nplements and 

 SHOW them to the best advantage. He had been with me many 



years as my assistant, but when my health failed I sent him. 

 Other men used to go with me to show particular implements, 

 Oq the 2nd of August he did not ask me to allow him to re- 

 main. I did not say that when he left the room he would no 

 longer be my servant. After we had made our arrangements 

 I understood from my son that he was desirous of remaining. 

 On the 4th of August I wrote a letter, in consequence of an 

 application from him, stating that " W. Woolnough knew R. 

 Garrett's views, and when he was prepared to fall in with their 

 views R. G. would see him." Had not made any arrange- 

 ments for substituting him as a seller of implements, but as a 

 foreman. On the 4th of August he wished to leave, but in 

 consequence of his behaviour I could not allow it. I did try 

 to make an arrangement to keep him as salesman, but failed. 

 On the 10th of August defendant received a letter from my son. 

 (The letter stated he could only be received back on R. Garrett's 

 terms.) The terms were that he should show the implements 

 and buy timber, and should have £50 a year for buying tim- 

 ber and 10s. a day when he attended market. I thought I 

 should make his income as much as formerly. Mr. Neeve 

 came to me and asked me to take him back under the old con- 

 tract. We appointed three men the same day to take Wool- 

 nough's place as foreman. They were paid as common work- 

 men before, but their wages were advanced £1 and lOs.a week. 

 Re-esamiued : I received his letter on the Slst of July, but 

 did not proceed to make arrangements to fill his place until 

 the next day. I could not put the defendant as foreman over 

 a cumber of men after he had abused me before the men with- 

 out any cause whatever. 



Mr. E. Cottinghani, brother-in-law of the plaintiff, corro- 

 borated the previous witness as to the conversations which 

 took place between him and defendant on the 1st and 2nd of 

 Angust. 



Cross-examined : Mr. Garrett never said, " When you leave 

 this room you are my servant no longer." I advised Mr. Gar- 

 rett to give defendant the agreement and settle, but he would 

 not. I also advised the defendant to settle it. 



James Kirrage deposed : I was in plaintiff's service iu July, 

 and Woolnough snid to me Ludbrook was the man to be put 

 foreman over the smiths' department. On the evening of the 

 2nd of August the defendant came to my house and said, " I 

 have left Mr. Garrett's service, that's certain, and will stand 

 no more of their humbug." I asked him not to be too fast. 



Mr. Taylor deposed : I have beeu with Mr. Garrett thirty 

 years. On the 31st of July Woolnough came to me to settle 

 with him for his expenses to Carlisle. I refused ; and he said 

 he was off, he would have no more of it. 



Crrss-examined : I refused to settle the expenses, as I heard 

 there had been some unpleasantness between him and Mr. 

 Garrett. As the firm had advanced money to him I did not 

 know whether he had money to pay or receive. 

 This being the plaintiff's case, 



Mr. Couch contended that no breach of covenant had beeu 

 proved. 



His Lordship held that the defendant had not left the plain- 

 tiff's service ; but was ready to perform the agreement, only 

 he would not let him. 

 Mr. O'Malley objected and his Lordship reserved the point. 

 Mr. Couch was addressing the jury, when his Lordship sug- 

 gested that a juror should be withdrawn on the delendaut pay- 

 ing the proportion of the bonus £184, Mr. Garrett promising 

 if any bilauce was due to the defendant it should be deducted 

 from £184. 



Mr. Couch applied for time for payment; but on Mr. O'Mal- 

 ley objecting, it was agreed that the money should be paid 

 under a rule of court in a month. 



Mr. O'Malley stated that there were three other actions 

 pending for infringement of patent, and his client was willing 

 to refer the cases to any three respectable men. 

 Mr. Couch decliL.ed to do so. 



SIMPLE TEST FOR GUANO.— A bushel of guano, if 

 pure, weighs almost exactly 70 lbs. ; if adulterated with light 

 substances (which is rarely the case), it will, of course, weigh 

 less. If clay, marl, aaud, &e., have been used, the weight will 

 be materially increased, and, so far as this test applies, gross 

 adulterations will be easily detected. — Cameron's Chemistry of 

 AgrkuUwe, 



