“THROWN MUD”

Gisborne Times, Volume LXIX, Issue 10855, 26 March 1929, Page 2

“THROWN MUD”

MAGISTRATE’S CENSURE ON WOMAN PLAINTIFF

PALMERSTON N., March 19. “Slio has thrown, as much mud as sho could, with the idea, of causing all tho trouble possible,’ was the outspoken comment of Mr J. L. Stout, S.-M.,- in the. Magistrate’s Court to-day in giving judgment for Miss A. Newman, owner of the “Hat Box” millinery salon, Palmerston North, against whom Mis® E. Mb Eastwiclc, proceeded for LI GO damages. for alleged breach of contract. Plaintiff, in her evidence heard a fortnight ago, said that she had a good, deal of millinery experience in’ Australia, London and Now York. When at Nelson she saw an advertisement in a-paper for Tv lady to take charge of a millinery salon at £4 a week. This she answered and defendant replied, with th'e result that witness decided to accept the position. She.arrived' in Palmerston North, and' on entering the shop defendant greeted her with the remark : “Good morning! I get them here by tho dozens.’ They come on on© train and I send them away by the next.”

Continuing, plaintiff said that she was told she would have to dust, water the flowers, and sit behind a screen and do practical millinery. To this witness objected, stating that she bad not accepted a job like that. Witness secured rooms. That evening she went along to have a .good look at the shop in George Street, and, to her surprise, defendant came out to speak to her. She said sh'o didn’t think she would take witness. Witness stated she had been put to a good deal of expense in coming to Palmerston North and had tried to get a position since, but without success. There was not much chance of her getting employment until September next.

To defendant’s counsel witness said she would never have come to Palmerston North had she , known she was coming to work for a woman.. Slip thought “Newman” which was the only signature to telegrams received, was a man. Defendant, in evidence, said hot first interview with Miss Eastwiok had been quite Friendly. Witness denied slie had ever had drink during business hours. "Witness had told Miss East wick that she wanted her to ho quit© nice to customers,'as her clientele was quite a “quality” one. Plaintiff seemed perfectly satisfied with the terms apd duties laid down by witness. Miss Eastwiok came hack to the shop at 5.31) p.m., when she stated that she had procured accommodation at tho T.W.C.A. hostel. After asking what time work started in- the morning, they parted in the friendliest manner. Witness expected to see plaintiff at work next morning, but did not. receiving instead a letter about 9.30 a.in. from plaintiff, stating that the position had been misrepresented to her. The position offered to plaintiff Lad not as yet been filled. “Plaintiff has not made ’out he! ease”, said the Magistrate, in giving judgment. “She accepted the position offered by Miss Newman, and failed to appear next day.- The evidence tendered bv tho defendant is more reasonable and more likely to ho true. Miss Ea.-dwick lias set mil lo do as much damage as she can, and any employer who heard her giving evidence would bo chary of giving her work. She lias thrown as much mud ns she could, with thy tin' idea, of causing all the trouble possible.' Her various suggestions regarding Miss Newman’s business, and that- the owner was intoxicated when she interviewed her, are without any foundation in fact. Even if Miss Eastwiclc used tho language she alleges she did when Miss Newman engaged her, the latter would have been quite within her rights m breaking tho engagement immediately. There was no misrepresentation as to the position, advertised and that offored to Miss Eastwiclc. In tho circumstances,' the verdict must bo for the defendant, with costs.” Judgment was entered accordingly, with solicitor's fee £B, ajud witnesses’ expenses.