70 / 80
58
The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.
MARCH, 1919
entitled to be paid the value thereof in
addition to the month's wages which had
been lodged.
As illustrating the general principles on
j
which damages for wrongful dismissal are
'
computed another recent case reported in the
current month's Reports should be referred
to.
In
Manubens
v.
Lean
(1919, 1 K.B., 208)
a hairdresser employed at a weekly wage of
30/- with a commission on any goods sold,
was wrongfully dismissed.
It was held that
being entitled to a week's notice .he was
entitled to a week's wages of 30/-, but it
being also an implied term of the contract
j
of his service that he should be allowed to
receive tips from the customers served by him,
the
loss
of
those
tips must be
taken
according
to
the well-known principles
''
established by the leading case of
Hartley v.
Baxendale
(1854, 9 Ex. 341), to have been in
the contemplation of the parties as the
result of the breach of the contract, and that
therefore the value of the week's tips must
be taken into consideration in assessing the
damages for the wrongful dismissal.
Costs of A ction for Tort.
THE Rules of the Supreme C.ourt, 1905, Order
65, Rule 4, provide that when the parties
reside within the jurisdiction of the Civil Bill
Court of the county in which the cause of
action has arisen, if the plaintiff in any action
disconnected with
contract
(except
for
replevin, slander, libel, malicious prosecution,
seduction or criminal conversation), shall
recover a sum not exceeding £5, the plaintiff
shall not be entitled to any costs unless at
the trial of such cause, the Judge shall certify
that the case was a fit one to be tried in the
High Court.
A plaintiff brought an action for damages
for assault and false •imprisonment. At the
trial the jury brought in a verdict for £5 on
each issue. The defendant contended on the
taxation of the costs, that the plaintiff, was
not entitled to any costs, there being no
certificate of the Judge under the above Rule.
The King's Bench Division held that the true
interpretation of the rule was the amount
recovered in the action and not the amount
recovered in each separate cause of action,
and that the plaintiff having recovered £10
in the action was entitled to the costs.
'(Donnelly v. Verschoyle
(1919), 2 I.R., 101.)
The defendant appealed, and the Court of
Appeal affirmed the decision of the King's
Bench Division.
Calendar of
the
Incorporated Law
Society,
1919.
E
Society's Calendar and Law
Directory for 1919 can be obtained
in the Secretary's Office, price 4s,, or by
post 4s. 6d.
'
ALL communications connected with THE
GAZETTE (other than advertisements) should
be addressed to the Secretary of the Societv,
j
Solicitors' Buildings, Four Courts, Dublin