Can an employee who replaced merchandise on the shelf the previous night be called as witnesses?

I must agree with learned counsel for the appellant that if the learned trial judge concluded because of the failure to call as witnesses the employee who had replaced the merchandise on the shelf the previous night, he was entitled to infer that if such witness had been called he would have testified the jar was damaged at that time, that the learned trial judge was in error. To do so would be an unwarranted and improper extension of the principles propounded in Murray v. Saskatoon (City), supra. Here, no one appears to have known when the jar became damaged. The only known fact is that it was damaged when picked up by the respondent and that fact is not in dispute. But even if the learned trial judge were in error in this, respect, this does not dispose of the matter.