Ambleside County Court Ambleside Lakes Herald October 2, 1885 Page 5 Friday before Judge Ingham and the registrar, G. Gatey, Esq. W.R. and H. HARTLEY v Mrs. SHAW This case was adjourned at the last court for the production of the books of the plaintiffs. The books were produced and proved the debt denied by the defendant. An order was made for payment. HAYES v THOMPSON This was a claim made by Mr. Robert THOMPSON, gardener of Grasmere for £11 15s being the year's rent for a field and cowhouse sublet to the defendants. The case had been several times before the court, and had been adjourned for evidence as to the value of the property. Mr. HEELIS for the plaintiff and stated that he was willing to accept the valuation agreed to by the defendant's witness. John DAWSON stated that he knew the premises in question and he valued the field at £3; with the out houses it was worth £5 a year. - HARRISON said he valued the field at £3 a year and that part of the premises occupied at £2. It was stated that the whole of the premises had been locked up by the defendants, who had the key in their possession and that being taken into consideration an order was made of the payment of £6. Henry HILTON v Rev. R.J. PIGGOTT Mr. BACKHOUSE of Blackburn for plaintiff Mr. R.F. THOMPSON of Kendal for defendant It appears that Mr. HILTON was employed as school master at the Kentmere School, of which the defendant, Rev. R.J. PIGOTT is a manager. The claim was for £50 being seven months salary at £70 per annum and part of the Government Grant. Of this amount £22 11s 6d had been paid into court, leaving a part of the Government Grant and one quarter's salary in dispute. This the defendants declined to pay, on the ground that the plaintiff had been given three months' notice, but had refused to leave, and had to be forcibly ejected from the school by a police constable. The amount paid into court was Mr. HILTONS's salary up to the expiration of his notice. Mr. BACKHOUSE in opening the case said that an agreement had been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants on the 14th of May 1883, as to terms on which Mr. HILTON was engaged as schoolmaster. His salary was to be £70 per annum, payable quarterly, and three month's was necessary on either side. A notice had been sent to his client, terminating his engagement in April last. They admitted that, but the claim was up to July as the plaintiff had been requested to continue in the school until that time, after the receipt of the notice, and he submitted that his client was entitled to that part of his salary. Mr. HILTON stated the terms of his agreement, one of which was that if he performed his duties satisfactorily he was to receive half the Government Grant. He had performed his duties satisfactorily. The Judge: This notice of dismissal shows that the engagement has not been mutually satisfactory. Mr. BACKHOUSE: His salary was paid each quarter from May to January and no complaints were made, and therefore we claim half the Government Grant, as it is apparent he had performed his duties satisfactorily. I now wish to show that the defendants waived the notice. The plaintiff, after he received his notice in January, was requested by some of the parties to stay until the examination, and he stayed there until the 22nd of May, more than a month after the expiration of his notice. He was requested to stay on by Mr. BLAND, an ex officio manager of the school, and as a representative of Mr. PIGOTT. Mr. PIGOTT: I do not admit that. Mr. HILTON, continuing his evidence, said that Mr. BLAND saw him on the matter, and the witness proposed that he should stay until the examination in July. Mr. BLAND consented to this. With regard to his services being satisfactory the witness said he had received two or three quarters' salary and no complaints were made. Mr PIGOTT had told him he was satisfied and seemed to have no doubt that he would get half the Grant. In reply to the question as to why he had not left the school at the expiration of his notice, witness replied he had been legally advised not to do so, and also because he saw Mr. BLAND before the 5th of April, the date on which his notice expired and was requested to stay on by Mr. BLAND. On the 22nd of May, Mr. BLAND came on Mr. PIGOTT's behalf and asked the witness what he intended to do. He said he would tell him on the next Monday morning. On that morning, the plaintiff's wife went down to Mr. BLAND with the key for the purpose of giving up possession but she returned with it and made a statement in consequence of which the witness stayed at the school, understanding that he was to carry it on until the examination. The Judge remarked that Mr. BACKHOUSE had got to a good age in the profession, but he had never seen him conduct such a case before. Mr. BACKHOUSE retorted that perhaps his honour could point out in what manner he was not conducting the case properly. He was only acting under instructions. Mr. HILTON in further evidence, testified that Mr. BLAND said, in the vicar's presence that on the vicar's behalf he was to go on to the examination. Mr. PIGOTT: This is not correct. The Judge: We must have Mr. BLAND here. The Witness (Mr. HILTON): I never had any complaints as to my manner of conducting the school. Mr. PIGOTT came nearly everyday and he never expressed the least dissatisfaction. I asked Mr. PIGOTT why he gave me notice. The real reason was because he took exception to my wife going to certain houses in the village. In fact, visiting the son of a former vicar, that was the chief reason. It was stated that the reason why the schoolmaster was dismissed was because Mr. TREMENHEERE, the school inspector spoke of the mismanagement of the school. Mr. PIGOTT said emphatically, it was a lie that he had expressed no dissatisfaction. The Judge considered the notice sent to Mr. HILTON sufficient evidence of dissatisfaction. He enquired if Mr. BLAND had been antagonistic to those proceedings and was informed that he was not. Judge INGHAM continued: This is a case which will have to be further investigated. I have no doubt Mr. BLAND, as well as Mr. PIGOTT will contradict these statements. There has been some gross perjury somewhere, and I am fully determined to adjourn the case for the evidence of Mr. BLAND. The documents are directly in opposition to the evidence of the plaintiff. This is a case which affects the governors of the school, and I would recommend the managers to communicate with the Charity Commissioners as to what further action they should take. The case was adjourned for Mr. BLAND to be brought. David Leverton Leverton, Stevens, Clibborn, Dodgson, Hird, Stalker ulpha@telus.net