Supreme Court Action.

Hokitika Guardian, 7 June 1922, Page 1

Supreme Court Action.

LANDLADY SUES FOR BOARD. [by TELEGRAPH —I»ER TRESS ASSOCIATION] WELLINGTON, June 6. To-day in tho Supreme Court is being heard a claim for damages and money allegedly due, brought by Agatha Downes, proprietress of the Bay View Boardinghouse at Day’s Bay, against the New Zealand Rugby Union.

The c-lailn is in connection with incidents of tho Springboks’ tour. The All Blacks were accommodated for their final training at plaintiff’s place. She alleges that the Union refused her reasonable remuneration and failed to make good tho damage done by members of the team.

Mr Wilford, for the plaintiff, detailed the preliminary arrangements, and ’the inquiries leading tip to all assurance by A. .1. Griffiths that the Rugby Union would do the fair tiling by plaintiff, for at that time no definite arrangement had lieen made as to the tariff.

After the men had settled down, Mrs Downes told Griffiths that she could not possibly keep men on the ordinary tariff, “when two chops and four eggs were an average breakfast.” Mr Griffiths replied: "Give them plenty ; the Union will pay.” Three times the plaintiff referred to the, amount the men ate, and each time (Iriffiths replied that she was to go on, and the Union would pay. Evidence was given that screens, showers, etc. had to he also supplied at Days Bay, but nothing for the Springboks at Island Bay, who paid 11s a day extra. The bathing accommodation cost the Union £26. The men were accommodated pretty roughly. Some were sleeping two in a bed. It was suggested at a meeting of tho -Management Committee that Mrs Doyrnes should take the men at £3 per week. The damages were set down at £lO, and board at 17s fid. It was admitted that the union was under an obligation to pay a fair thing, and if Mrs Downes did more than was arranged for, an allowance would he made. It was stated, that streaking to some of the members of the union at Days- Bay, Mrs Downes had admitted

that she had nothing to cavil at regarding the behaviour of the men, and also that she had told another person that her terms were l()s a day, or £3 a week. Extras supplied to the team by the union amounted to £3O. The plaintiff, in giving evidence, said that no arrangment as to 10s or 11s had been made. She had complained that each man ate enough for three, and Mr Griffiths had told her to "Co on, the union would pay!” By arrangement with the union, she had closed her tea loom. The men behaved themselves well before the match, but after tho match n crayfish supper was held from midnight. The bedroom jugs had been used as beer jugs, and glass jugs as drinking glasses. The men vomited on the carpets, and had used towels to clean the place tip.' Mattresses and pillows were torn up, and : the kapok was pel toil about. The men ! wrestled on the bods, and tho mattress ! gave way. A polished table was used I as a stand for the boor barrel. The union bad offered 67 for the damage, and 11s a day per man. Every j man had had returns at meal times, and some had two and three returns.

The defence was a complete denial of the allegations made by the plaintiff. The manager and trainers said the team were well conducted, and were a happy lot of men. On the night after the match, when it was stated the crayfish supper was held and that a mess was made, it was affirmed that only six members of the team attended, the others going to hod as soon as they got to Day’s Bay. The damage to the lavatory anti carpet was also denied. The hearing has been adjourned. There was loud laughter raised in the court, when one witness said the members of the team ate as much as any four moil. -They had eggs, chops, sausages, and other things, and then tliov I'limo hack for returns.