SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1754, 20 May 1913, Page 11

SUPREME COURT.

DRAPERY STORE EPISODE.

GIRL CLAIMS £300.

SUIT AGAINST EMPLOYER,

Before his Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and a jury of four, Baphno Bell Bull, 20 years of age, claimed i£lso from William Allan for alleged wrongful dismissal, and .£l5O for alleged slander. Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. J. C. Poacock for the defendant. Mr. Wilfonl stated that the girl had, for some time, been earning her living as a shop assistant. Sho had left the D.I.C. with a good reference. On entering the service of Veitch and Allan (the business is now carried on by tho defendant, Allan), she received a wage of 12s. Gd. per week, which was afterwards increased to 15s. per week. For this plaintiff worked from 9 a.m. till 6 p.m. daily, except on Saturdays, when she continued working till 9 p.m. On February 22 defendant Allan dismissed her without notice, alleging that she had stolen- a pair of gloves. "This little girl," continued Mr. Wilford, "absolutely outraged by what ho said, opposed everything ho alleged, denied his allegation, and went away and brought her mother. Defendant, Allan, 6aid that she had been, seen to take tho gloves and put them into her pocket or

her belt, and ho still persisted in that statement." Continuing, Mr. Wilford said that the girl would prove that the statement that she had taken tho gloves was untrue, and could only have been told to Mr. Allan by someone who maliciously wished to injuro her. However, she was "sacked," and when she protested her innocence sho was not confronted with her accusers. Mr. Allan simply stood by his statement.

The plaintiff, Daphne Bell Bull, was then called to give evidence. She stated that on the morning of February 22 she served a customer with several small articles, and the customer then asked to see some gloves. Witness went- to the department where gloves were kept, and brought some 4s. lid. gloves. Tho customer did not buy the gloves, saying that she had not enough money with which to purchase them." The customer asked her to put tho gloves aside. Witmess put them aside in a fixture for some time, but, afterwards, as the woman did not return, she replaced the gloves in the box from which sho had taken them. Late in the afternoon she was informed that Mr. Allan wished to see her in his office. Mr. Allan 'there told her that two people had watched her, and had informed liim that she had put the gloves in three different fixtures, and whilo sho was away 'they had made a thorough search, and the gloves could not be found anywhere. Witness had asked Mr. Allan: "Do you think that I am a thief?" Mr. Allan had answered: "Putting it that way —Tes." Mr. Allan had said, also: "The gloves are missing, and you liavo to go." Witness returned to the shop with her mother, and Mr. Allan then stated that the two girls who had informed, were Miss Bernard, who had been in his employment for twenty-two years, and. another woman (whoso, name he did not mention), who had been at the shop a month. Witnless was now working in the Kelburno ticket office for ;£1 'ss. per week. In this offico about -£'!0 passed through her hands daily. To Mr. Petherick: On leaving* she received iEI 10s., 15s. of which was in lieu of a week's notice.

Mr. Peacock submitted that there was ho case for a jury. As to the claim of ,£l5O for wrongful dismissal, plaintiff was only entitled to one week's wages, in lieu of notice, and she bad been paid, that. On the question of slander, the circumstances in which the defendant Allan was placed constituted a "privileged occasion." He asked for a non-suit. Mr. Wilford, in reply, said that the attitude adopted towards the plaintiff was equal to malice, and therefore tho case should go to the jury. Mr. Wilford amplified his point by stating that the 6tory against the girl was that 6he had been seen to take the gloves between ten and eleven o'clock in the morning. She was allowed to go to lunch and was not called to the proprietor's office fair late in tho afternoon. Then she was told to go away for half an hour, and when slio returned was informed that sho had to go, and she was not confronted with her accusers. His Honour upheld tho poinlts raised by Mr. Peaoock, and he nonsuited plaintiff. Ho remarked that he was bound to say on behalf of the girl plaintiff that no evidenoe of wrong had been adduced against h.or, and that sli€ left the Court without any slight on her character., Mr. Wilford mentioned that he might appeal on thie point re wrongful dismissal. Security for appeal was fixed at