Domestic Infelicity.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIX, Issue 55, 26 June 1914, Page 5

Domestic Infelicity.

MOTHER AND DAUGHTER. A CLAIM FOR WAGES. f At the Court this morning Blanche Wishaw (Mr Lawrey) sued Susan Wishaw (Mr Macalister) for £l2 10s, due for wages. Plaintiff, in evidence, said she was a nurse by occupation. In June, 1913, her mother asked her to return to her and promised her 10s a week if she would stay with her. Previously she had been employed elsewhere at 15s per week. Three or four payments of wages were thade to her. Her mother kept a boarding-house and plaintiff did kitchen work and general house work, Beside sthe payments made, she received a few small sums from her mother. She let the account run on because she thought it would be paid in time. By Mr Macalister: Plaintiff was absent once for three weeks on holiday, when she was unwell, but she had never been absent otherwise. Previously she had not asked for/ her money because the knew her mother did not have it, but now her mother had a nursing home which was reported to be doing well. Her mother knew for a month before, she left that she intended to leave, and knew about a week before she left that she had another position. She left her mother's in the same week as Van Heck. The latter .was in poor health, and plaintiff spent some .time in attending to him, though this was chiefly in the evening. She knew that her .mother had secured judgment . against Van Heck x f or board. Plaintiff did not make this claim as a result of the claim, against Van Heck—she had made arrangements to sue before the other'claim was made. But plaintiff admitted that she had suggested to her mother that her claim could be written off* against the claim against ; Van Heck.. Plaintiff had not taken these proceedings at the instigation cf Van Heck. ' Defendant gave evidence that plaintiff, had returned to live with her at New Plymouth, but there was no arrangement as to wages. She had al-

ways given the daughters who lived

with her the .money they needed, but

not as wages. Plaintiff was treated as a'daughter should be and got her • own way very much. Plaintiff gave only one day's notice of her intention to leave. The payments were made at no se| periods;,, and witness could not say the total amount received by plain. tiff. Witness was sure that the whole of the trouble had been caused by a third party. When other daughters had,returned home for any reason they had never made claims for wages. To Mr Lawrey: Witness had offered to put her daughter on set wages when she moved into her new" house, hut plaintiff had not been in the new house. Witness was positive that on the day of the New Plymouth races she did not give,her other daughter 10a |Mad to give plaintiff half a crown. Td/ Mr Macalister: She was positive that previous to judgment being secured against, Van Heck on June 12th no claimjwas .ni&cie by plaintiff for payment, of F a g es «. Mr Lawrey,said he had written on

plaintiff's beljaif on May 16th. Rhoda Wishaw, daughter of defendant, gave evidence that there was no » agreement for wages, for either herself or plaintiff. Of an afternoon she and plaintiff would frequently go out for i the afternoon. To the Court: Neither her mother nor her sister had spoken of an arrangement for wages. To Mr Macalister: Witness and her sister just halved the work of the house. The S.M: said the case, shonld have been settled in some manner out of Court. He had to decide from the evidence if there was regular employment at a set wage. Hexhad decided that on the evidence no'arrangement was made. Plaintiff set up that she was in the position of a domestic servant but the evidence pointed to her being treated as a daughter. Plaintiff had only given one day's notice of intention to leave, which was not con.sistent with an arrangement to pay wages. The most plaintiff should have done would have been to claim something more than she'had been paid if she needed it, but only on the scheme *of payment alleged by the mother and not as wages. The plaintiff had failed to prove her case and judgment would be given for defendant. No costs were applied for.