HUMBUGGING THE UNEMPLOYED.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2150, 10 February 1880, Page 3

HUMBUGGING THE UNEMPLOYED.

A case of interest to new arrivals and others iniscarch of employment, was heard at the Resident Magistrate’s Court, Duucdiu yesterday. It was

that of William Langhlin v. Armstrong and Pattinson, damages £lO for false representations. The defendants arc labor agents. The plaintiff's evidence was that in January he applied to them for a situation. The defendants guve him a scaled letter addressed to one Mollis, a storekeeper near Gore. I lie witness asked to see the letter, but they said it was private, and that it was sending him to a billet of 30s per week in a store. Witness wont to Gore, but there found that Mollis was not there, his store being shut up, and the business sold off. People at Gore told him that Mellis did not require a man at all, that the place was shut up, and that seven or eight people had been sent down from Dunedin by the defendants on a similar errand. The witness on arriving at Gore had to walk 20 miles out to Mollis’ place and back again. He had to pay 33? for railway fare, had been put to expense for living, and had lost a fortnight's time, during which ho might have got a billet elsewhere. The defendants denied the plaintiff’s stoiy, stating that they sent the plaintiff to Mellis’ because the latter had shortly before instructed them to send eighteen men to his place to work on a station. The Magistrate, however, considered the plaintiff’s ease proved, and that the defendants did make false representations. He asscscd the damages at £5.