Echols & Co. v. Fleming

In an action by a discharged employee for the year’s wages, where both parties have introduced evidence, the jury should not be charged that the plaintiff must show himself without fault. The charge, that it was for the jury to determine from the facts proved, whether the plaintiff was guilty of such conduct, or neglect of duty, as to authorize the defendants to discharge him, was, so fax-, cox'rect.

Contracts. Oliarge of Court. Master and Servant. Before Judge Tompkins. Richmond Superior Court. October Term, 1876. Fleming brought complaint against Echols & Company for $1,100.00, for services rendered as book-keeper and warehouseman from September 1st, 1875, to September 1st, 1876. The defendants pleaded that the plaintiff voluntarily discharged himself; also, a tender of the amount due him for services to the time of such discharge. Counsel on both sides agreed as to the law of the case, except that defendants’ attorney insisted that plaintiff had to show himself without fault to recover the year’s salary, whilst plaintiff’s attorney urged that it was a question for the jury whether the facts authorized plaintiff’s discharge or not. Evidence was submitted by both parties, which it is admitted was sufficient to sustain the verdict if the law applicable thereto was correctly administered. Defendants’ attorney asked the court to charge the jury that the plaintiff must show himself without fault to entitle him to recover a year’s salary, which request the court refused, and charged the jury that it was for them to determine, from the facts proven, whether the plaintiff, as clerk and employee of the defendants, was guilty of such conduct or neglect of duty as to authorize defendants to discharge him. The jury found for the plaintiff the amount sued for, less certain credits about which there was no dispute. The defendants excepted to the charge as given, and to the refusal to charge.