" VALENTINE I'. HYDE."
[To THE EDITOR Or THE " SPECTATOR."] Sus,—Our attention has been drawn to the paragraph contained in your issue of March 15th. which commented on the ease of " Valentino en. Hyde." It is stated therein that lire employers dismissed the plaintiff. As a matter of fact the plaintiff, Mr. Valentine, Las not ceased to work for the Earl of Ellesmere's collieries yet, and is still employed there. The true facts are that under the threat of a strike the employers, seeing no other remissly, intimated to the plaintiff that lie would have to leova their service, but directly proceedings were started. whirls offered an opportunity to the employers of retaining Mr. Valentine in their service, they at once 'wailed themselves iif it and cancelled his notice. We think that this stronisl be made clear because the employer, the Earl of Ellesmere, has through- out the proceedings acted with great propriety and (tailless.— We are, Sir, Ase., MILLS, LOCI:YEA, AND MILLS, Solicitors to the Plaintiff. 5 Finsbury Square, E.C. 2.
[Our authority, the full report in the Times, slid not mention the fact that Mr. Valentine's notice of dismissal bad been CS11. celled. We are glad to know that he did not suffer the loss of his employment through the quarrel between the rival Unions. —En. Spectator.]
Previous page
