Stott v. . Sears, Roebuck and Co.

Tbe testimony of tbe plaintiff and that of C. A. Woods, defendant’s southern territorial officer, is in direct conflict as to what plaintiff’s salary was to be for tbe year 1932. They both agree that it was to equal bis Scranton compensation for tbe balance of 1931. Therefore, plaintiff’s testimony with respect to bis compensation for tbe year 1932, was directly challenged by defendant’s witness, C. A. Woods. In this state of tbe record, it was permissible for plaintiff to offer in evidence tbe correspondence bad between himself and officers of tbe defendant company, with respect to tbe terms…