R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 94, 29 March 1884, Page 2

R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

(Before J. Booth, Esq., R.M.) FRIDAY. The following cases, set down for hearing to-day, were adjourned until Friday, April 4: Hemi te Awahuku v. P. Barker and A. McDonald. Stevens v. Locke, Egens v. Cameron, Wainwright v. Blain, and Doleman v. Common and Co. were • adjourned until Tuesday, April 8. Rees v. R. D. McDougall, and Scott v. Pirihi Tutokohi were also adjourned until Friday, April 18. FINN V. EMILY STICKLEY. This was an action by Mr. H. J. Finn, solicitor and barrister, against Emily Stickley, housemaid, for, during the plaintiff’s absence from his private residence between the 22nd Feb. and the 3rd March, wilfully, wrongfully, and improperly trespassing in such private residence by entering therein, and also entering the drawing room, walking on the carpet and playing on his piano, whereby the said carpet and piano were injured to the loss and damage of £6. Mr. Kenny appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. McDougall for the defendant. In opening the case Mr. Kenny said, the defendant was housemaid to the plaintiff, and had been dismissed |by the plaintiff before

leaving for Wellington. While he was absent she had, in company with her young man, entered the house, played on the piano, and wound up by taking supper. Mr. Finn’s sole motive in taking the action was to protect himself from an intolerable and unbearable nuisance, and to make an example so as to protect other people in the same unfortunate position. Awy damages which might be adjudged would be given to the Hospital. H. J. Finn was the plaintiff—Defendant was in his employ up to Feb. 22, when he paid her her wages, and dismissed her, prior to his leaving for Wellington. She had no permission to enter his house during his absence. He never allowed the servants to enter the drawing room and play the piano. He had brought the present action in consequence of information he had received. Cross-examined by Mr. McDougall: Had told a cook named Sarah never to allow any dismissed servants to visit the house. The misconduct of the defendant consisted partly in her impertinence to Mrs. Finnn and himself. She was in the habit of bouncing out

of the room, and slamming the door. On the Wednesday, prior to his leaving for Welllington, he spoke to her, when she went out of the room and banged the door with such force as to make the whole house vibrate. He called her back, and asked her what ahe meant, and told her to leave his house. She commenced crying and yelling in a terrible manner, and he allowed her to stay for compassions sake. He never retracted the dismissal, and paid her on the Friday, again requesting her to leave the house at once. When he left for the boat on Friday, he instructed his man, whom he left in charge, to see her out of the house. She was not entitled to any notice, and expressed regret for her behaviour when he paid her. By Mr. Kenny—The girl expressed her sorrow for her behaviour on the Friday. The piano was a valuable Broadwood one. Oliver Veal, baker’s man, remembered the Saturday, Feb. 22, and went to Mr. Finn’s house on that day, and remained there three or four hours. Had never been there since. Was conversing with Stickley, and she played the piano. Stayed in the drawing room about an hour, and then went into the kitchen and dining room where he sat down. Had supper in the kitchen, and they left together. Never went again after Miss Stickley left, as she was the only attraction. Went again once in company with Miss Stickley, but never went into the drawing room. On all these occasions Mr. and Mrs. Finn were absent. Had never awakened the children by making a noise and been requested to leave by the nurse. Was certain Miss Stickley had not been there since.

In cross-examination the witness said he had been to the house with Mr. Finn’s knowledge. Mr. Finn, on one occasion, met him in the garden, and in answer to Mr. Finn’s enquiry told him that he was visiting Miss Stickley. Mr. Finn said “ all right.” Went on the Saturday afternoon and brought Miss Stickley away. Was going to marry her. Took her to Mr. G. Robb’s, where she remained until she went to Auckland.

Emily Stickley—Was engaged by Mrs. Finn for no particular term, with a week’s notice on either side. Was never impertinent to Mr. Finn, and on the Wednesday, when he gave her notice, he remarked that she had always been most respectful. On the occasion of Mr. Finn complaining about the two girls, Sarah and Ellen, coming to the house, she told him that Sarah had come to see the other girl. He complained that she had been impediment to Mrs. Finn, and said they had better part. Never spoke to Mrs. Finn until Friday. Never cried. On Friday Mr. Finn paid her and told her to go. He walked out of the room immediacely. She told Mrs. Finn that she could not leave that day, as she had no where to go to, but would go the next day. Oliver Veal came and fetched her away. When Mr. Finn had gone, the cook told her that Mrs. Finn said she (witness) could stay until Monday. They went into the drawing room and had a little music. By Mr. Kenny—could not remember crying and going into hystirics on the occasion of receiving notice. Annie Webster, cook in the employ of the plaintiff—Mr. Finn said he did not like her coming to the Court, because he was afraid she would faint. Mr. Finn never authorised her to allow Miss Stickley to stay in the house until the Monday. She did it on her own responsibility alone. After Mr. McDougall had addressed the Court at some length, and Mr. Kenny had replied— The Bench was of opinion that a case of trespass had been proved, and awarded ss. damages, and costs £1 145., at the same time remarking that Mr. Finn deserved great credit for having the moral resolution and courage to bring this case before the public. FINN V. 0. VEAL. The evidence in the foregoing case having been deemed to settle this one, which was between the same plaintiff and the witness Veal, a verdict was given for the plaintfff, damages Is. and costs.