“THROWN MUD.”

Hokitika Guardian, 28 March 1929, Page 2

“THROWN MUD.”

MAGISTRATE’S CENSURE ON WOMAN PLAlis IIEF.

PALMERSTON N., March 19,

“She has thrown as much mud as she could, with the idea of causing all the ..rouble possible,” was the outspoken ommenfc of Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., in .he Magistrate’s Court to-day in giv.ng judgment for Miss A. Newman, nvner of the “Hat Box” millinery •aloon, Palmerston North, against vhom Miss E. M. Eastwick proceeded or £l6O damages for alleged breach of ontraet.

Plaiirtiff, in her evidence heard a ortnigb.t ago, said that she had a good leal of i millinery experience in Aus train, London and New York. When at \ T elson • she saw an advertisement in a taper for a lady to take charge of a iiillino.ry salon at £4 a week. This she answered and defendant replied, witli ■he result that witness decided to accpt tlie position. She arrived in Palnerston North, and on entering the hop defendant greeted her with the .emark: “Goad morning! .1 get them lere iby the dozens. They come on the train: and I send them away by the icxt,

Cofntimiing, plaintiff said that she vas .•(.old she would have to dust, water the flowers, and set behind a screen md do practical millinery. To this .vitriicss objected, stating that she had not accepted a job like that, Witness eeutred rooms. That evening she went along to have a good look at the shop : n Cleorge St. and to her surprise, defendant came out to speak to her. She -ai l she didn't think she would take •.vifinoss. Witness stated she had been puli to a good deal of expense in coming; to Palmerston North, and had tried to get a position since, but without success. There was not much chance of her getting employment until September next. To defendant’s counsel witness said she would never have come to Palmer, sto-n North had she known she was (•earning to work for a woman. She thought “Newman,” which was the only signature to telegrams received, was i |iman.

Defendant, in evidence, said her first interview with Miss Eastwick had been liilite freindly. Witness denied she had ev«3r had drink during business hours. Witness told Miss Eastwick that she wsuited her to be quite nice to custom3i;s, as her clintele was quite a “quality’” one. Plaintiff seemed perfectly satisfied with the terms and duties laid down by witness. Miss Eastwick c«ne back to the shop at 5.30 p.m. wb.cn she stated that she had procured accommodation at the Y.W.C.A. hosted. After asking what time work stared in the. morning, they had parted) in the friendliest manner. Witnejss expected to see plaintiff at work neext morning, but did net, receiving instead a letter about 9.30 a.m. from plaintiff, stating that the position bad been misrepresented to her. The posiio n offered to plaintiff had not as yet been filled. ►“Plaintiff has not made out her case,” said the Magistrate, in giving judgment. “She accepted the position offered by Miss Newman, and failed to appear next day. The evidence tendered by the defendant is more reasonable and more likely to ho true. Muss Eastwick has set out to do as much damage as she can, and any employer who heard her giving evidence would be chary of giving her work, feme has thrown as much mud as she could, with the idea of causing all the trouble possible. Her various suggestions regarding Miss Newman’s business, and that the owner was intoxicated when she interviewed her, are without any foundation in fact. Even if Miss Eastwick used the language she alleges she did when Miss Newman engaged her, the latter would have been quite within her rights in breaking the engagement immediately. There was no misrepresentation as to the position advertised and that offered to Miss Eastwick. In the circumstances, the verdict must he for the defendant, with costs.” Judgment was entered accordingly, with solicitor’s fee £8 and witnesses’s expenses.