THE  TROPICAL  AGRICULTURIST. 
Junk  i,  1896.] 
maiuifactmed  and  packed  by  steam-driven  macliineiy. 
Tbcy  avoid  in  that  way  contact  with  the  hands  and 
feet  of  perspiriuf{  native  labonrers.  This  admission 
alone  should  settle  the  question  of  superiority,  and, 
when  more  generally  understood,  will  doubtless  lead 
to  the  almost  universal  use  of  Ceylon  tea. 
It  is  quite  possible  that  many  tea  dealers  were 
acquainted  with  these  facts,  and  therefore  served 
the  best  interest  of  their  customers  by  encouraging 
the  salo  of  Ceylon  tea,  for  otherwise  it  is  hard  to 
account  for  the  enormous  increasing  in  its  consump- 
tion recently,  although  during  the  last  year  the  re- 
presentatives of  Ceylon  have  been  activtdy  engaged 
in  disseminating  information  regarding  their  product. 
This  resulted  during  the  laafc  year  in  the  sale  in 
this  country  of  over  9,000,000  pounds,  air  increase 
of  about  72  per  cent,  over  the  previous  year.  This 
means,  of  course  a high  grade  of  tea,  for  cheap  teas 
are  not  handled  by  the  Ceylon  dealers,  and  they 
make  no  pretense  of  supplying  them.  Tea  drinkers  who 
are  very  careful  of  their  diet  are  confined  almost 
exclusively  to  this  kind,  and  the  increasing  attention 
to  sanitary  and  hygienic  matter  so  redounds  to  the 
advantage  of  Ceylon  tea  that  it  is  practically  master 
of  the  situation — The  New-York,  I'neman's  ,/ouruaJ. 
TEA  MARKET  RERORTS- 
OUR  LONDON  TKA  LETTER. 
(From  Our  Own  Correspondent.) 
Marcli,  27. 
MU.  cionnoN  cintMixo  r.  noo.UiS  te.\  co. 
Since  iny  last,  a case  of  considerable  interest  and 
importance  to  the  planting  community,  H.  W.  Gor- 
don i .umming  v.  the  Dooars  Tea  Co.  Ld.  came  up 
for  hearing  in  the  High  Court  of  .Justice  Queen’s 
Reach  Division,  before  the  Lord  Chief  .Justice  (Uus- 
seii)  and  a special  jury.  In  this  case  the  plaintiff 
cliumeh  compensation  for  arbitrary  and  unjust  dis- 
missal, without  due  cause,  contrary  to  custom  and 
engagement  reasonable  notice  not  having  been  given. 
As  a tolerably  full  and,  under  the  circumstances,  a 
most  fair  statement  of  the  Court  proceedings  on  this 
day  has  appeared  in  The  Home  and  Colonial  Mail, 
which  paper  I presume  all  your  readers  Mr.  Editor 
see  regularly  as  they  certainly  ought  to  I need  not 
enlarge.  As  the  case  was  arranged  by  compromise  on 
the  urgent  recommendation  of  the  Lord  Chief  .Justice, 
evidence  not  having  been  gone  into  on  either  side, 
the  defendants  statement  not  having  been  heard,  your 
conienrporary  no  doubt  felt  bound  not  to  make  any 
comments,  or  even  report  the  plaintiff's  counsels 
opening  statement  quite  as  fully  as  he  otherwise 
might,  anything  further  I have  to  add  must  be 
under  the  same  proper  restraint. 
The  plaintiffs  senior  counsel  was  Mr.  Dickens’ Q.C- 
son  of  the  novelist  who  opened  his  case  with  a 
singularly  precise  and  lucid  statement,  considering 
that  the  matters  referred  to  w'ere  so  foreign  to  his 
experience-  The  substance  of  the  learned  counsel’s 
speech  was  very  accurately  given  bj^  your  contem- 
porary. This  need  .not  be  repeated  or  even  sum- 
marised here.  The  Chief  .Justice,  judging  from  the 
brief  remarks  he  made  as  Mr.  Dickens  proceeded,  had 
grasped  the  case  pretty-  clearly  before  taking  his  seat 
on  the  Bench,  and  as  counsel  commenced  to  read 
tlie  correspondence,  his  Jjordship  urged  him  to  lead 
up  to  the  main  point  as  briefly  as  possible.  Mr. 
Dickens  while  expressing  some  disappointment  said 
be  bowed  to  the  ruling  of  the  Coiut,  and  rapidly 
turned  over  mimeious  pages  of  his  brief,  and  read 
an  important  communication  from  the  London  Board 
of  the  Co.  to  Mr.  Veiner  their  Superintendent  in 
India,  to  the  effect  that  if  Mr. 'Gordon  Gumming 
declined  to  accept  the  terms  offered  there  would  be 
no'  help  for  it  but  dispense  with  his  services,  in 
which  case  he  was  to  receive  the  “ notice  customary 
in  the  district”  or  salary-  in  lieu  of  notice — one  or 
three  months  as  the  case  might  be,  but  in  that  re- 
spect to  “ err  on  the  side  of  liberality.”  It  seems  only 
fair  to  the  London  Board  of  the  Dooars  Co.  that 
819 
this  omission  in  the  report  referred  to  be  supplied 
otherwise  after  the  memorable  peroration  by  Sir 
William  Hunter,  (one  of  the  Co.’s  Directors),  when 
presiding  at  the  “ Assam  Dinner,”  in  July  last,  when 
tie  appealed  so  earnestly  in  well  chosen  words  of 
sympathy  to  “ all  those  who  controlled  large  tea 
companies  and  large  affairs”  to  deal  liberally  with 
their  employees  and  make  their  lives  as  healthy 
and  happy  as  possible,  (as  reported  in  your  issue  of 
3rd  August  last),  the  position  of  this  Board  of  Direc- 
tors might  appear  somewhat  incongruous.  As  soon 
as  this  communication,  and  letter  from  Mr.  Verner 
the  Superintendent  in  the  Dooars  to  Mr.  Gordon 
Cumming,  and  Mr.  Cumming’s  reply  were  read,  the 
Chief  Justice  interposed  saying  that  in  the  face  of 
these  letters  it  was  useless  for  the  defendants  to 
contend  for  one  month’s  notice  that  the  case  was  emi- 
nently one  in  which  the  parties  should  “ meet  each 
other,”  and  strongly  urged  a consultation  and  settle 
ment  in  that  way.  The  defendant  Company’s  counsel, 
Mr.  Robson,  Q.C.  then  made  a statement  to  the 
effect  that  he  did  not  admit  the  plaintiff’s  statements 
that  all  the  correspondence  had  not  been  read,  and 
that  he  was  prepared  to  prove  inter  alia  that  one 
month's  notice  (or  one  month’s  salary  in  lieu  of  notice) 
was  customary  in  the  Dooars  district.  The  Lord  Chief 
Justice  thereupon  i-emarked  that  if  the  jury  had  been 
deprived  of  “ a treat  ” in  not  having  had  more  of  the 
correspondence  read,  he  was  entirely  to  blame  for  it. 
After  some  consultation,  counsel  announced  that  a 
settlement  had  been  arrived  at,  and  it  had  been 
agreed  that  a verdict  should  be  given  for  the  plaintiff 
with  costs,  for  a sum  to  be  afterwards  fixed  on  the 
basis  of  three  mouths’  salary  and  commission  down 
to  middle  of  July  1895.  . 
Though  it  is  to  be  regretted  that  the  case  could 
not  have  been  arranged  without  going  into  Court 
at  all,  in  the  public  interest  seeing  it  had  gone  so 
far  (several  witnesses  having  it  seems  been  previously 
examined  “ on  commission  ”)  it  might  have  been  well 
had  the  case  been  thoroughly  gone  into  and  an 
authorative  decision  given.  Yet,  there  can  remain 
no  doubt  that  both  parties  are  to  be  congratulated 
on  its  having  at  last  been  so  summax’ily  disposed  of. 
I have  heard  that  on  the  spur  of  the  moment,  at 
the  close  of  the  court  proceedings,  Mr.  Gordou-Cum- 
ming  did  not  appear  satisfied  with  the  terms  agr-eed 
to  on  his  behalf  by  his  legal  advisers,  but  though 
the  compensation  w-ould  seem  but  very  inadequate  for 
one,  especially  a married  man  just  returned  to  the 
gardens  from  furlough,  so  long  filling  as  he  did  the 
the  important  and  responsible  position  in  the  com- 
pany as  proved  with  acknowledged  efficiency,  he  is 
not  the  least  to  be  congratulated  on  the  termination 
of  the  litigation.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that 
no  employee  single  handed  can  fight  a large  public 
company  on  equal  terms,  and  Mr.  Gordon-Cumming 
had  really  no  written  agreement.  On  the  other 
hand,  no  ‘‘tea  company  or  other  large  office,”  can 
hope  to  be  w'ell  served  or  retain  good  men,  if  they 
are  subject  to  dismissal  on  one  mouth’s  notice  at  any 
season  of  the  year.  It  certainly  behoves  all  tea 
concerns,  as  well  as  managers  and  assistants,  to 
see  to  these  matters.  VVe  all  hear  of  the  “ glorious 
uncertainties  of  the  law,”  and  this  must  be  es- 
pecially great  in  regard  to  a case  depending  upon 
“ custom  ” in  a tea  district  tried  in  England  or 
indeed  anywhere.  I can  have  no  doubt  Mr.  Gordon- 
Cumming  was  well-advised  by  his  counsel  and  agents, 
who  must  have  been  well  enable  to  make  a very 
correct  estimate  of  the  utmost  to  be  obtained  from 
the  court  and  jury  had  they  for  the  defendant 
declined  a settlement  and  proceeded  with  the  case 
after  the  peremptory  recommendation  of  the  Lord 
Chief  Justice.  And  above  all,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
at  all  of  the  moral  victory  for  the  plaintiff,  though 
it  is  to  be  feared  after  all  has  been  squared  up  tlie 
pecuniary  result  may  not  prove  a satisiactory  “ com- 
pensation.” On  the  cou.raiy  it  is  to  he  feared,  that 
though  the  case  miglit  have  dragged  on  its  miser- 
able course  much  longer  and  been  merely  worse,  it 
will  as  it  is  be  but  another  proof  of  the  correction 
of  the  verdict  finally  arrived  at  by  the  old  country 
man  who  had  dabbled  in  litigation  all  his  life,  that 
“the  winner  loses  but  the  loser  loses  most  d, ,ly  ” 
