I agree and have very little to add. During the course of the argument I was at first impressed with the view put forward by Mr. Wise that the plea which charged the plaintiff with the issue of a false certificate must be read as imputing to him some personal dishonesty - that, as it must be taken that the jury found there was no personal dishonesty and that the act complained of was done simply in the interests of his employers, no legal ground for dismissal had been established. But after consideration I do not think the case can be put in that way. It must be remembered that, in the relations that existed between the defendants as smelters and the persons from whom they bought ore, the utmost good faith was of vital importance. The company had established a course of business the essence of which was that proper independent assays should be made by each party, and that after telephone communications had been exchanged the result of the assays should be communicated by one to the other. It is obvious that the independent assay was the essence of that arrangement. In this case the acts alleged against the plaintiff were proved. He got Dalgety & Co.'s assay. He handed it to Merton. Merton saw from that that his own assay had been too high. He took it away and corrected it. He had either made, and I assume quite innocently, a mistake in his original certificate, or had made another assay; and it must be taken on the jury's finding that, with the utmost honesty on the part of Merton and of the plaintiff, the alteration was made in Merton's certificate. It is clear the alteration was made in his certificate after the result of Dalgety & Co.'s assay had been brought to the plaintiff's and to Merton's notice. What followed on that? One could understand, under these circumstances, the whole matter being explained to Dalgety & Co., other samples being assayed or other procedure followed, which would have enabled the assay of this particular lot of ore to have been made again in accordance with the conventional system. Instead of that, the original assay of Merton, without Dalgety & Co.'s knowledge, was corrected on 7th October, and appeared in the company's books as if it had been the original assay made on 4th October. It was upon that assay that calculations were made and the price obtained from Dalgety & Co. It seems to me that under these circumstances the certificate was properly described as a false certificate, and that it was put forward as a true certificate with the intent and effect that the price paid to Dalgety & Co. for the ore was less than it should have been. Under these circumstances, even assuming that all this was directed or permitted by the plaintiff in the interests of his employer, and that he believed that in acting as he did he was doing nothing dishonest, the defendants, in my opinion, were entitled as a matter of law to dismiss him. In considering the conduct of a person placed in a position of trust such as the plaintiff occupied in the defendants' service, one must have regard to the ordinary standards of honesty and morality. It is well known that somewhat loose views of commercial morality do exist in the minds of some people, but a man's conduct must be judged by the rules of commercial honesty which usually obtain among persons carrying on an honest business of that kind. Looking at the matter from that point of view it is evident that what the plaintiff did or permitted amounted to a gross breach of faith with the parties whose ore was to be paid for on the faith of the assay. Under these circumstances the question arises whether the jury are to be the sole judges of the propriety of the dismissal, notwithstanding that the law entitled the defendants to put an end to the plaintiff's service. There are of course many cases in which the question whether the misconduct charged was sufficient to justify dismissal is a matter entirely for the jury; but misconduct may be of such a nature that as a matter of law it justifies the employer in exercising his right of dismissal, and when such an act of misconduct is proved or admitted it is the Judge's duty to direct the jury that they can come legally to one conclusion only, and that they should find accordingly. If in such a case the jury should disregard that direction their verdict could not stand. It seems to me that this is one of those cases, and that there was a legal right on the part of the defendant company to dismiss the plaintiff. That being so His Honor ought to have directed the jury accordingly. As he did not do so the verdict must, in my opinion, be set aside and a verdict entered for the defendants. I am sorry to be obliged to arrive at this conclusion because it is evident that the defendant company suffered no actual damage from the defendant's conduct, and that the thing was done in what he believed to be the interests of the company, and not to serve any interests of his own. Even the company's representative who inquired into the matter evidently attached very little importance to it. These, however, are considerations for the jury, and I am sorry to say this Court has nothing to do with them, and, much as I regret it, I am obliged to concur in the view that the appeal must be allowed and the verdict set aside and judgment entered for the defendants.