RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 412, 25 November 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Tueday, Nov. 21. (Before J. Giles, Esq., R. M.) Kenny v. O'Connor. —This was a claim of £lO, being £7 alleged to be due for wages, and 80s for board and lodging for two weeks when discharged from service. The case for the plaintiff was that she had been engaged for a month by the defendant, Miss O'Connor, hotel-keeper, Addison's Flat, at £3 10s per week, " to dance and to be useful in the bar." She rendered

these services for two weeks, and was then told to leave, as the defendant had " knocked off dancing." She received £7 for the two weeks. The case for the defendant, for whom Mr Tyler appeared, was that the plaintiff was discharged for drunkenness and consequent incompetence for her duties. Evidence as to the circumstances complained of was given by Miss O'Connor, and the circumstances of the plaintiff's discharge were corroborated by Miss Brown. The defendant, in crossexamination, denied having been the worse of drink. She might have been " a little boozy" at six or eight o'clock in the morning, after sitting up all night playing cards, but she could not be worse than others in the house. She might have slept in till eleven o'clock two or three times, but she was never in bed till mid-day. She was only three or four times up all night; twelve was the regular hour ; but, "in these places, you are required to stop up all night for that matter." "When discharged, she was told that the plaintiff had "knocked off dancing;" she was not told that she could not be trusted in the bar. The Magistrate said there could be no doubt that the defence would be good, as far as the case went, if the facts had been fully proved. No doubt a person in employment getting drunk and incompetent would be entitled to be discharged. But it did not appear to biin that the plaintiff was discharged on that account. There was some evidence of her being intoxicated on Novemberlst, hut no notice had been taken of it, and also on the 10th, but again no notice was taken. But. she was discharged on the 12th, when the defendant gave up her dancing establishment. He ■ lid not think the defence held good altogether. At the same time he did not think the plaintiff was entitled to the full amount ; her conduct must be considered to some extent. He thought a defence of the kind came with a very bad grace from a hotelkeeper. People in such employment were in a position of peculiar temptation, and their behavior should be looked upon with more leniency by their employers, if not by other parties. Fie thought they were not entitled to bring forward such a defence. Taking all the circumstances, he would give judgment for £o, being one week's wages, and the cost of board and lodging for a week.