April  i,  1896.]  THK  TROPICAL  AGRICULTURIST. 
7*3 
favour  of  abolishing  the  duties  on  sugar,  which 
event  took  place  in  1871.  Still,  in  upholding  the 
views  of  those  persons  who  are  strong  advocates  for  a 
“ free  hreakfast-table,’  we,  for  our  part,  should  be 
glad  to  see  the  impost  on  tea.  coffee,  cocoa,  chicory, 
and  dried  fruits  all  swept  away  at  a stroke  and  es- 
pecially those  on  the  minor  articles,  which  yield  only 
a paltry  addition  to  the  revenue  of  the  country. 
One  of  the  speakers  at  the  meeting  put  the  whole- 
case  in  a nutshell  when  he  said  that*  on  the  face  of 
the  memorial  there  are  two  things — one  is  the  small- 
ness of  the  sacrifice  asked  for,  and  the  other  the 
benefit  it  would  bring  to  a very  large  and  important 
trade.’  In  fact,  the  duty  on  coffee  amounts  to  only 
about  £170,000  per  annum,  whereas  that  on  tea 
reaches  no  less  than  fd.thKl.OOO  in  a single  year,  so 
that  there  is  virtually  no  excuse,  on  any  grounds 
that  can  be  urged,  for  not  repealing  the  impost  on  the 
former  because  it  would,  as  the  Chancellor  of  the 
Exchetiuer  puts  it,  be  unjust  not  to  abolish  the  duty 
on  the  latter  claimant  for  exemption.  Coffee,  as 
a harmless  yet  refreshing  kind  of  beverage,  is 
more  beset  with  difficulties  in  its  path  to  con- 
sumers than  any  other  di'ink,  and  when  these  are 
duly  pressed  upon  the  attention  of  the  Legislature  it 
is  for  them  to  seek  to  remove  them  as  quickly  as 
possible.  A great  bar  to  the  consumption  of  coffee 
in  the  United  Kingdom  is  the  absence  of  liberal 
supplies  of  a desirable  character  ; and  the  main  cause 
of  its  consumption  not  progressing  at  an  advanced 
rate,  since  the  duty  was  halved  in  1873,  has  been 
the  serious  and  alarming  falling  off  in  the  imports 
from  Ceylon,  which,  in  consequence  of  the  failure  of 
the  crop  through  the  setting  in  of  the  leaf  disease 
there,  about  the  same  year,  have  since  dwindled 
almo.st  to  nothing.  Substitutes,  it  is  true,  such  as 
Costa  Rica  and  other  Central  American  descriptions, 
have  been  found  for  plantation  Ceylon,  but  these 
have  proved  totally  inadequate  to  make  up  for  the 
deficiency  in  the  receipts  from  Ceylon,  and  no  fresh 
sources  of  supply  have  been  opened  up  that  would 
serve  as  a beneficial  stimulus  to  the  home  trade. — 
//.  d-  C.  Mail,  March  13. 
IN  THE  COURTS. 
MR.  GORDON  GUMMING  AND  TIIK  DOOARS 
COMPANY,  LIMITED. 
In  the  High  Court  of  .lustice.  Queen’s  Bench  Divi- 
sion, before  the  Lord  Chief  Justice  and  a special  jury, 
last  Friday,  (Murch  G)  the  case  of  H.  W.  Gordon  Gum- 
ming v.  theDooarsTea  Company,  Limited,  came  up  for 
hearing.  The  case  is  of  much  interest  to  the  tea  in- 
dustry and  planting  community  generally.  Trio  plaintiff 
cl-iimed  compensation  for  alleged  arbitrary  and  unjust 
dismissal,  without  due  cause,  contrary  to  custom  and 
eneagement,  reasonable  notice  not  having  been  given. 
Mr.  Dickens,  Q.C.,  and  Mr.  C.  A.  Russell  appeared 
for  the  plaintiff ; Mr.  Robson,  Q.C.,  and  Mr.  Bremner 
for  the  defendants. 
Mr.  Dickens,  Q.C.,  opened  the  proceedings  for  the 
plaintiff  by  making  a lucid  statement  of  the  case. 
He  said  the  gardens,  which  were  the  starting  point 
of  those  which  now  constitute  the  jn-operty  of  the 
Dooars  Company,  were  opened  out  for  the  Messrs. 
Verner  and  others  at  Tondoo  about  1880,  when  Mr 
Gumming  joined  their  service.  Subsequently  it  was 
deemed  advisable  that  Mr.  Gumming  should  proceed 
to  Assam  and  take  employment  on  a tea  garden  in 
that  province.  This  Mr.  Gumming  did,  remaining 
in  active  employment  and  gaining  all  possible  ex- 
perience in  the  interests  of  the  Dooars  concern. 
The  Dooars  Tea  Company  was  formed  about 
1886,  with  Mr  Verner  as  superintendent  in 
India  and  Mr.  Gumming  as  a divisional  manager 
under  him.  Mr.  Verner  was  sometimes  unwell, 
and  absent  from  the  gardens  irr  consequence,  and 
thus  the  entire  charge  of  the  concern  and  responsi- 
bility of  the  garden  operations  were  left  to  Mr. 
Gumming  for  lengthened  periods.  Soon  after  the 
formation  of  the  Dooars  Tea  Company  Mr.  Verner, 
the  superintendent,  had  to  go  home  on  furlough,  and 
Mr.  Gumming  acted  for  him,  taking  full  charge,  as 
he  did  on  other  similar  occasions.  A communica- 
tion from  the  board  to  Mr.  Gumming,  with  an  extract 
from  the  minutes,  was  read  expressing  satisfaction 
wdth  the  manner  in  which  he  had  discharged  his 
duties,  and  appointing  him  deputy  superintendent  on 
a monthly  salary  of  700  rupees,  to  rise  annually  till 
it  reached  1,000  rupees  a month,  and  he  was  also 
to  receive  a commission  of  l.v  per  cent  on  the 
profits  of  the  Company.  This'  arrangement  con- 
tinued until  1894,  Mr.  Gumming  officiating  as 
superintendent  during  Mr.  Verner’s  absences  till 
Mr.  Cumming  went  home  on  sick  leave  in 
that  year.  When  at  home  in  October,  1894,  he  re- 
ceived a letter  fi-ojii  the  secretary  to  the  company  stat- 
ing that  as  the  board  had  not  found  the  appointment 
of  deputy  superintendent  answer  the  purpose  intended 
they  had  resolved  to  abolish  it,  but  they  offered  Mr’. 
Cumming  the  management  of  one  of  the  company’s 
gardens  with  a monthly  salai’y  of  700  rupees  andj  per 
cent  commission  on  the  profits,  and  otherwise  on  the 
same  conditions  as  the  other  garden  managers  of  the 
c )inpany.  To  this  Mr.  Cumming  at  first  demurred 
but  ultimately  agreed,  and  in  due  time  returned  to 
India  to  resume  nis  duties.  After  reaching  the  gar- 
dens in  March,  1895,  he  received  intimation  that  he 
was  to  hold  his  appointment,  as  all  the  other  garden 
managers  did,  on  the  condition  that  it  was  terniinable 
at  any  time  on  one  month's  notice  being  given.  This 
however,  Mr.  Gumming  declined  to  agree  to.  A com- 
munication from  home  to  Mr.  Verner,  the  superin- 
tendent, was  read,  stating  that  if  Mr.  Cumming  was 
unwilling  to  accept  this  condition  there  would  be  no 
help  for  it  but  to  give  him  notice  that  his  services 
would  no  longer  be  required,  but  in  the  latter  case 
to  give  the  customary  term  of  notice,  The  superin- 
tendent then  intimated  to  Mr.  Cumming  that  if  he 
would  not  agree  to  the  terms  offered  he  was  then  to 
accept  one  month’s  notice,  and  forthwith  make  over 
charge  at  an  early  date  named.  This  Mr.  Cumming  did 
and  proceeded  home  in  the  hope  of  obtaining  redress 
and  compensation  from  the  directors  of  the  Dooars 
Company.  In  addition  to  stating  the  case  as  above 
Mr.  Dickens  contended  that  in  the  working  of  tea 
gardens  there  was  a “season”  which  closed  with  the 
gathering  of  the  last  of  the  crop,  generally  in  De- 
cember, and  that  in  consequence  changes  of  managers 
were  made  at  the  end  of  the  season.  Anyone  dis- 
missed, therefore,  at  the  time  Mr.  Gumming  was 
would  find  it  impossible  to  obtain  another  appoint- 
ment. It  was  customary,  also  to  give  a manager  at 
least  three,  but  more  commonly  six  months’  previous 
notice  of  the  termination  of  hia  engagement  even  when 
it  was  to  take  place  at  the  end  of  the  year. 
At  oae  stage  the  Lord  Chief  Justice  asked  Mr 
Dickens  if  he  contended  that  the  Dooars  Company 
had  endeavoured  to  introduce  fresh  conditions  after 
the  engagement  of  his  client,  the  learned  counsel  re- 
plying that  this  was  so.  After  the  reading  of  some 
letters  referred  to,  his  lordship  remarked  that  it  was 
eminently  a case  in  which  the  parties  should  “ meet 
each  other,”  and  he  strongly  urged  a settlement. 
The  defendant  company’s  counsel,  Mr.  Robson 
Q.G.,  then  stated  that  he  did  not  admit  the  plaintiff's 
statements,  that  all  the  correspondence  had  not  been 
read,  and  that  he  was  prepared  to  prove  that  one 
month’s  notice  (or  one  month’s  salary  in  lieu  of  notice) 
was  customary  in  the  Dcoars  district. 
The  Lord  Chief  Justice  thereupon  made  a 
nmark  to  the  effect  that  if  the  jury  had  been 
deprived  of  a pleasure  he  was  entirely  to  blame  for 
it.  This  was  in  reference  to  hia  lordship  having  at 
an  early  stage  urged  Mr.  Dickens  to  lead  up  to  the 
main  point  as  briefly  as  possible,  when  the  learned 
counsel,  evidentlv  with  some  regrets,  turned  over 
• numerous  pages  of  the  correspondence,  merely  read- 
ing some  of  the  letters  last  referred  to.  After  some 
consultation,  counsel  announced  that  a settlement 
had  been  arrived  at,  and  it  was  agreed  that  a ver- 
dict should  be  given  for  plaintiff  for  a sum  to  be  after- 
wards fixed,  on  the  basis  of  three  months’  salary  and 
commission  down  to  July  17th,  1895. — H.  anti  (7,  Mail 
March  l:t.  ’ ' » > 
