The Bioscope (May-June 1912)

The Bioscope, June 13, 1912. The World of Finance. The following informatéon ha; been specially compiled for THE B1ioscoPR, and includes a Register of New Companies, Mortgages aud Charges, Winding-up Petitions and Orders, County Court Judgments, Reports of Financial Cases, etc., etc. All inquiries respecting financial mutters must be addressed to the Editor, and the envelope marked *' Financial.” JEAPES vr. WARWICK TRADING COMPANY, LIMITED. On Friday last, in the King’s Bench Division, before Mr Justice Darling and a special jury, Mr. William Cecil Jeapes brought an action against the Warwick Trading Company, Limited, for wrongful dismissal and arrears of salary and commission. There was a general denial, and a counter-claim for £247 136. 5d. for goods supplied to ths Graphic Cinematograph Company, and for other minur sums, bringing the total up to £281 lls. 3d. Mr. Walker, K.C., for the plaintiff, suid Mr. Jeapes was an electrical engineer and an expert in taking and exhibiting animated pictures. Up to 1906 he was carrying on business for himself in connection with films under the name of the Graphic Cinematograph Company. and in the course of his trade he was brought into contact with the Warwick Trading Company, who carried on a similar business. In the year 1908 the plaintiff was induced to enter the service of the defendant company, sv as to bring the two businesses into a kind of informal amalgamation. The arrangement between the parties was that the plaintiff was to enter into the defendant's employ for three years, the agreement to be renewable from year to year. In the event of either party wishing to sever the connection, six months’ notice was to be given. Plaintiff was to receive as salary £208 per annum, together with bonuses on a siding svale of 73 per cent. un business up to £3,000, and 10 per cent. on sums over £3,000. In May. 1909, the piainuff left the company's service under a mutual arrangement, bat in August of that year he returned to their service as manager of one of the company’s departments. He was to receive £5 per w ek, and commission at the old rate, with the further term that the commission should be a minimum one of £2 per week. Until January. 1911, the £5 was paid him, and subsequently he was appointed, in succession to a Mr. Smith, as general manayer of two departments, at a salary of £10 per week and commission. n 1911 the plaintiff went to America for the defendant company, and on his return in June a dispute occurred betwean him and Mr. Ellis, the managing director, and plaintiff said he supposed he had better give six months’ notice and leave. Mr. Ellis, however, declined to receive his notice, and sent plaintiff away. Plaintiff now claimed six months’ salary in Jieu of his notice and commission from 1909, subject to certain credits for sums received. With regard to the counter-claim. said counsel. this had reference to goods supplied to another Graphic Cinematographic Company. that waa the property of the plaintiff's brother, and started after the connection of the plaintiff with the defendant company. He had no interest in it. and defendants were aware of this. and had. continued counse!. actually sued the brother for the debt, so that the plaint:ff could in no way he held liable. Plaintiff gave evidence, and said when he returned from America in June he found that the best of the men had heen dismissed. and the works were upside down and everything was wrong. He mentioned the matter to Mr. Ellis. and suggested that he should be allowed to run the business in his own way, but Mr. Ellis replied that in future he should run the business as he liked. Things then went on in such a way for a few days that he could stand it no longer, and suggested that he should give six months* notice, and said that during that time he would do as Mr. Ellis desired. Mr. Ellis said he had better leave the place, which he did. At the same time Mr. Ellis suggested that he should come up the Saturday following, when they would discuss the matter of his salary and bonus. On his Google going to the office Mr. Ellis said heedid not think there was anything due, and refused to give him either salary or. commission. He also referred to the sum due from his brother, and brought the brother into the room, and asked him if he (plaintiff) was not responsible for this amount, but the brother repied ** No.” He (plaintiff) then put the matter into the hands of his solicitors. In cregs-examination by Mr. Moresby, for the defendants, plaintiff said he had no document to show that he was ever paid commission. His Lordship: Commission or bonus? Mr. Moresby said he was distinguishing between bonus and commission because Mr. Ellis had paid the plaintiff bonuses when the profits allowed it, but there was never any agreement as to commission. Plaintiff. in further cross-examination, said he did not know that the amounts were always entered as bonuses. He was claiming commission from 1909, and did get £25 commission on one oceasion, but that was royalty on the Cinematophone. which was his patent.. He was now claiming commission or bonus at the rate of £2 per week. Mr. Moresby said that was defendant's contention, that he was only given bonuses when the business was prosperous. Witness was cross-cxamined at great length with a view to showing his connection with the latter business of the Graphic Cinematographic Company, but asserted that it was his brother's business. He admitted that he had had dealings with that company, but said Mr. Ellis, the managing director of the defendant company, knew of this. Evidence was also given by Harold Jeapes, plaintiff's brother. For the defendant company, Mr. Moresby submitted that the plaintiff himself left the service of the company, who were in no way responsible for plaintiff’s action in this respect, and had not told him to leave. As to the claim for Commission, it was further contended that after the first engagement there was no agreement to pay commission, and the plaintiff was only given bonuses from time to time when the business warranted. There was nc liability in any other respect towards the plaintiff. Mr. Ellis, chairman and managing director of the company. gave evidence bearing out counsel's contention. He said there was never any agreement to pay plaintiff any commission, Other evidence having been given on behalf of the company, Mr. Ben Nathan. who went to America with the plaintiff. said on his return plaintiff told him he had left the Warwick Company and was bringing an action against them in reference to the cinematophone, but he made no complaint as to having been dismissed by Mr. Ellis. Counsel having addressed the jury, his Lordship put three questions to them for their decision. First, was the plaintiff entitled to bonus or commission; secondly, did defendants wrongfully dismiss plaintiff, and, if so, what were the damages; and, thirdly, was plaintiff indebted to the defendants on the counter-claim, and, if so, for how much? The jury answered all the questions in the negative, and judgment was entered for the defendants on the claim, and for the plaintiff on the counter-claim.