MAKING WATERPROOF CLOTHES.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIII, Issue 181, 1 August 1892, Page 3

MAKING WATERPROOF CLOTHES.

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES,

At the R.M. Court to-day the adjourned case, brought by Mary Ann Lane to recover £35 damages from John Morran, waterproof clothing manufacturer, for alleged wrongful dismissal, came up for hearing. Plaintiff had been engaged by defendant in London for a period of three years ab the wages of £2 5s per week. Mr J. O'Meagher appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Theo. Cooper for the defendant.

Jane Hunt, in the employ of Mr Morran, wa3 the first wibness called. She deposed bo baking over Miss Lane's work when the latter left, and detailed the circumstances of a "row" between the plain tiff and defendant. Witness stated that in her hearing Mrs Lane called Mr Morran several impolite names. The witness also detailed a conversation which took place between | herself and Mrs Lane in the witness' room. This conversation occurred three or four days before the plaintiff was discharged. Plaintiff told witness thab she had been to Government House to see Lady Onslow, and that Mr Morran was nob likely to receive the appointment to the Governor after what she had told Lady Onslow. Mrs Lane told witness not to tejl Mr Morran, as she intended to tell him whon she sued him why he did nob geb the appointment. Witness remembered the occasion Mrs Lane was dismissed. Mr Morran said to her, " I dismiss you for wilful negligence to duty." Witness thought that Mrs Lane replied: " Very well. Did you hear that, Miss Hunt?" Witness also gave evidence as to tbe hours Mrs Lane was in the habib of commencing and leaving work. Flora Gregory deposed that she had been in M r Morran's employ for 3 years. She had learned the waterproof clothing business. V\ ibness remembered Saturday, the 2nd of April lasb, when Mrs Lane was discharged. On bhe day previous wibness remembered Mrs Lane working on the sleeves of a waterproof coat (produced). The work was imperfect, and not done properly. Some months before Mrs Lane was discharged, she was irregular in her hours of attendance at work, and not diligenb.

Ethel Halliday, Esta Webber, and Grace Gordon, employees ab Mr Morran's, gave evidence, bub it was merely corroborative of the evidence given by the lasb bwo witnesses.

This was the whole of the evidence,

Mr Cooper, on behalf of the defendant, contended thab he was enbibled to judgment, and that he had justifiable grounds for dismissing the plaintiff from his service on the following grounds : —(1) Irregular attendance at work ; (2) interfering with plaintifl's business by visiting Government House in reference to the appointment to Lord Onslow ; and (3) extreme negligence in the conduct of her duties, especially in the making of the produced coat. Mr O'Meagher addressed the Court ab length on behalf of the plaintiff, and contended that Mr Morran should have produced the defective sleeves at the time he dismissed her. When Mr Morran had a sufficient number of hands in his employ taught the business by Mrs Lane, he sought every means in his power to geb rid of her, and Mr O'Meagher wenb on bo say bhab Mr Morran had to thank the plaintiff for the success of the undertaking.

Dr. Giles summed lip the evidence, and said it showed bhat there had been negligence and slackness on the part of the plaintiff, which justified her dismissal by defendant. Judgment was therefore given for the defendant, with costs £3 3s.