Miller v. Jones
| Decision Date | 26 October 1916 |
| Docket Number | 30891 |
| Parties | R. W. MILLER, Appellee, v. C. DURANT JONES, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Perry Superior Court.--W. W. CARDELL, Judge.
ACTION to recover damages for defendant's wrongful discharge of plaintiff from his (defendant's) employ. The defendant admitted the discharge, but pleaded that such discharge was for due cause. Upon the issues joined, the case was tried to a jury, resulting in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals.
Reversed.
S Trevarthen and H. G. Giddings, for appellant.
Dugan & Dugan, for appellee.
I.
Plaintiff was employed by defendant, as assistant manager of what was known as the Jones Cement Works, for the term of one year, from and after April 1, 1913, at the rate of $ 100 per month, for the first nine months, and $ 33.33 1/3, for the remainder of the year, payable at the end of each month.
Plaintiff entered upon his employment, and, on July 18, 1913, defendant discharged him. Plaintiff claims that the discharge was without cause, and he seeks, in this action, to recover the agreed compensation for the full term, less what he was able to earn during the period for which he was employed.
Defendant had purchased the cement plant at a receiver's sale, growing out of an action in which plaintiff herein was plaintiff, and one Van Patten was defendant. It seems that the two men, at one time, owned the plant which finally came into defendant's possession. During plaintiff's employment, he allowed Van Patten to take away some posts, which defendant claimed he had not purchased. Plaintiff was also absent (so it is claimed) from the plant several days at a time, without defendant's consent. On June 19, 1913, plaintiff wrote defendant the following letter:
Plaintiff, without the knowledge or consent of the defendant, also stopped some other employees from hauling sand to the plant. These things, testified to by defendant, and corroborated, to some extent, by others, were the reasons for plaintiff's discharge.
Plaintiff denied being absent from the plant, save with defendant's knowledge and consent; said he knew nothing of Van Patten's taking the cedar posts, although he affirmed that these posts had been sold to one Fife, before defendant Jones bought the plant; and, while admitting that he wrote the letter to Jones, before quoted, said that he did it to protect his (Jones') interests, because Van Patten told him he was going to try to have the sale to him (Jones) set aside for fraud, and to save him (Jones) from paying the balance of the purchase price. He also testified that the reason Jones gave him for discharging him, was that he (plaintiff) gave testimony damaging to him (Jones) in a suit by Van Patten to set aside the sale of the plant. Defendant also denied having directed men hauling sand to quit, because no more cement blocks were to be made. Upon the issues joined, the case was submitted on this testimony, plus some evidence tending to corroborate defendant, with the result heretofore stated.
II. After plaintiff had testified that he had only been able to get short jobs of work, during the year for which he was employed, he was asked, on cross-examination, if he did not, immediately thereafter, find employment, but was not permitted to answer. We think the question should have been answered, subject, of course, to explanation by plaintiff.
One Riddle was produced as a witness for defendant, and was asked this question, to which he made the response as shown:
On plaintiff's objections, the last clause of the answer...
To continue reading
Request your trial