40 
THE CHEMIST AND DRUGGIST OF AUSTRALASIA. 
Feb. 1, 1887. 
wrote to Mr. Alfred Bonnin in reference to the approaching 
dissolution between Main and Geyer, and proposed terms 
whereby he (witness) might be taken into partnership. Mr. 
Bonnin, of behalf of Mrs. Geyer, declined the offer made by 
Grundy, but expressed unqualified confidence in him as 
manager, and indicated readiness to retain his services at the 
same rate as before — £9 per week. Saw Mr. Bonnin in Octo- 
ber, and accepted the managership of the business on terms 
which were embodied in writing. The engagement was to 
begin from Nov. 1, and was to cover at least twelve months. 
To terminate his engegament three months’ notice was to be 
given from August 1 in any year. Witness had been a mem- 
ber of the Glenelg Corporation and a director of the Glenelg 
railway, but when the appointments ran out he did not renew 
his candidature for either of them, a term of the agreement 
with Mrs. Geyer being that he should devote the whole of his 
time to the business. Had always conducted the business to 
the best of his ability. Three days after he was put in charge 
an arrangement was come to by which he could have an 
overdraft on the Union Bank to the extent of £500. On 
November 27, 1882, he received a letter from Mr. Bonnin in 
regard to financial matters, and in January following witness 
called Mrs. Geyer’s attention to the loan sho had made 
of £800 from the Permanent Equitable Building Society 
on the lease of the premises in Hindley-street, and expressed 
the opinion that it would be a drag on the business, and 
would lessen his power to import stock from England. From 
November, 1882, to October, 1883, about £400 was expender 
on goods from _ England, and in the following year £138 only 
was spent. Eight per cent, was paid, he believed, on the 
mortgage of £800. In June, 1884, saw Mrs Geyer, and at hed 
request handed her £50 in addition to the sum of £24 usually 
paid her. He at that time again called attention to the 
financial arrangements of the firm. Was in the habit of 
paying Mrs Geyer £24 every four weeks, her receipts being at 
the rate of £6 per week. When she wanted more he paid the 
money to her. As the mortgage had to be paid ofi to the 
Building Society, and the Union Bank pressed for a reduction 
of the overdraft, witness offered to forego £1 per week of his 
salary in July last. Mr Bonnin desired that stock should be 
taken. Witness agreed, and Mr Harry Bickford, who examined 
the stock, reported in August last that the stock-sheets showed 
the value at £1,368 7s. 3d. Witness made a statement of 
capital and profit to Mr Bonnin on August 27. The result of 
an interview was that Mr Bonnin asked witness to make him 
an offer for the business. On September 2 last witness wrote 
to Mr Bonnin, asking that a price should be put on the 
business, and_ pointing out that the lease of the premises 
would expire in two and a half years. Communicated with 
Sir Henry Ayers’s agent (Mr Harry Ayers) in regard to a 
renewal of the lease, and had a reply to the effect that a 
reasonable offer for a new lease would be accepted. Saw Mr 
Bonnin on the matter, but he appeared annoyed, and said he 
could not “ boss ” Mrs Geyer, and the business was hers. A 
day or two afterwards (September 10) he received a letter from 
Mr Bonnin, ^ stating that Mrs Geyer had decided after 
consulting friends not to sell the business, and affirming that 
he (Mr Bonnin) could not understand Avitness’s balance 
sheet, which aj^peared to show a considerable loss in 
profits on the business since 1882, and that he had resolved 
to have the accounts examined bj" a professional accountant. 
Had been in the habit of rendering an annual balance-sheet 
similar in character to that submitted to Mr. Bonnin in 1886. 
About ten minutes after the receipt of the letter on September 
10, Mr. V. Lawrence, accountant, arrived on the premises, and 
went through the accounts. Plaintiff rendered him all the 
assistance he could, and Mr. Lawrence carried aAvay all the 
books and documents he considered necessary for his purpose. 
The books and papers were brought back a few weeks subse- 
quently, and before plaintiff’s dismissal. Asked Mr. Lawrence 
Avhy he did not give him a report of what he had done, but 
Mr. Lawrence told him that he had received strict instructions 
not to alloAv him to see the report. This Avas the first time 
Mr. LaAvrence had gone into the accounts ; j^reviously Mr. E. 
S._ Price had done so, and his report had alAA'ays been sub- 
mitted to Avitness. On December 22, Avitness received a letter 
from the defendant stating that as the result of the report 
supplied by Mr. LaAvrence she had lost all confidence in 
AAUtness, Avho must consider his engagement at an end, in- 
structing him to hand over the business to Mr. NeA'ille, and 
declining, on account of the damage said to have been done 
by him to her business, to hold a personal interview with 
Avitness. On receiving the letter, Avitness called in Mr. Neville, 
and in Mr. M. S. Rowe’s presence, remarked to him that it 
was the result of thirty-one years’ service. Told Mr. Rowe he 
thought his discharge Avas a most cruel and abominable action, 
and that if Mr. Bonnin did not understand the business 
management, he ought to have called in experts or arbitrators.. 
He also said, “ There’s money due to me,” but Mr. Rowe re- 
plied, *‘We don’t pay you one farthing.” The sum of £19* 
was then due. 
On the second day of hearing Mr. Grundy said that in 
September last, on the day after his dismissal, he observed 
advertisements in the Register and Advertiser giving notice by 
Mrs Geyer that he Avas no longer in her employ. Thereupon, 
he instructed his solicitor to take proceedings. A letter was 
sent to Mr. Alfred Bonnin demanding that plaintiff should be 
paid £530 for Avages and as compensation for wrongful dis- 
missal, on the ground that the engagement could only be ter- 
minated by a three month’s notice given on August 1, and 
stating that proceedings As^ould be taken against Mrs. Geyer 
for libel unless she inserted in the newspapers an apology,, 
dictated by plaintiff, for the notice which she had advertised 
as to his dismissal, and Avhich he regarded as a malicious 
libel. Mr. Bonnin replied that Mrs. Geyer was ready to de- 
fend the action. Plaintiff had never expended money 
extravagantly in the business, and did not engage 
too many subordinates. His hours were from 9 a.m. 
to 5.30 p.m., and on various occasions he had beeni 
on the premises on alternate nights until 11 o’clock. 
When the neAv fii-m started, he had between 40,000 and 50,000 
counter-bills for wrapping purposes, printed at a cost of about 
£12 10s. Had also advertised in small AA^eekly papers in the 
town. In 1871, the old unsaleable stock on the premises 
amounted to about £500 or £600 in A’alue. Since 1871, he 
had been in Ihe habit of giving a Christmas box to each of the 
assistants, and getting one himself. In October, 1882, he- 
called Mr. Bounin’s attention to the fact that Christmas boxes 
had been given, and Mr. Bonnin told him to do in future as 
he had done in the past. The Aveeldy balances Avere invariably 
made up on Friday night. Ahvays paid the cheques for salar- 
ies into his OAvn banking account, and then drew his own 
cheques for the assistants, as he took no receipts. This ao 
counted for his taking the money for salaries out of the firm two 
or three days before the wages Avere actually due. Salaries were 
ahvays paid on the Friday. Only Mr. Bonnin exercised super- 
vision over the business. Defendant frequently said Avhen he 
Avent to intervieAv her about the firm, “ I don’t understand it ; 
you must go to Mr. Bonnin.” Copies of the balance-sheets- 
and business correspondence foi’AA’arded to AA’itness to Mrs 
Geyer, from November, 1882, until his dismissal, were handed 
in, and Avitness also produced a statement for the whole time^ 
Since his dismissal plaintiff had sought for employment, but 
unsuccessfully. 
Cross-examined by theCroAvn Solicitor — Mrs. Geyer received 
£50 in June every year additional to the £6 per Aveek, but it 
was not as a bonus. Agreed to devote his Avhole time to 
Geyer & Co.’s business, but served as a director of the Glenelg. 
Railway Company a year after November, 1882. Offered him- 
self for re-election, but Avas not appointed. Geyer & Co.’s 
business had receiA^ed great advantage through his being a 
director of the Company, but he did not feel justified 
in troubling himself to get re-elected. Gave up his post as 
councillor at Glenelg, but had since been appointed a Justice 
of the Peace. The note-heads of the letter-paper and the 
handbills, cfec., used by the firm Avere inscribed “ Geyer & Co., 
Mr. F. E. Grundy, Manager.” Mrs. Main and Mrs. Geyer, 
widoAY ladies, Avere in partnership, having tAA’o shops, from 
1871 to 1882, and each received as income from the business 
about £500 per annum. Witness, as manager of the tAva 
shops, received £9 per Aveek. When the dissolution AA’as 
mooted he strongly advised Mrs. Geyer to retain the shop in 
Hindley-street. She did so, and engaged him at the same 
salary as he had received AA'hen managing both the Hindley- 
street and King William-street shops. The Hindley-street 
shop contained the larger amount of stock. Had learned 
that Mr. Price valued the leases of both premises at 
£2000 each at the time of the dissolution. In November, 
1882, the Hindley-street lease had about 6^ years to run. 
Mrs. Geyerpaid £750 premium for the stock, fixtures, d'C., ac- 
cording to Mr. Price’s aAvard, to Mrs. Main, aa'Iio took the King 
William-street property. From documents put in Avitness 
