SYDNEY MILLINER FAILS IN ACTION FOR £160 DAMAGES

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 6864, 20 March 1929, Page 9

SYDNEY MILLINER FAILS IN ACTION FOR £l6O DAMAGES

Hat Box Case NO MISREPRESENTATION CONCERNING POSITION Plaintiff has not made out her case. She accepted the position offered by Miss Newman and failed to appear next day. The evidence tendered by tho defendant is more reasonable and more likely to be true. Miss Eastwick has set out to do as much damage as she can and any employer who heard her giving evidence would be chary of giving her work. She has thrown as much mud as possible, with the 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 Eastwick used the language she alleges she did when Miss Newman engaged her, the latter would kave been quite within her rights in breaking the engagement immediately. There was no misrepresentation as to the position advertised and that offered to Miss Eastwick. In the circumstances the verdict must be for tke defendant with costs.” In the foregoing words, Mr. J. L. Stout, S.M., gave judgment in the case in which Miss E. M. Eastwick claimed £l6O damages for breach of a contract of employment by Misa A. Newman, owner of the “Hat Box” millinery salon, Palmerston North. Mr A. M. Ongley appeared for plaintiff and Mr Belling for Miss Newman. The plaintiff’s evidence was heard on February 19 and when the court resumed yesterday, plaintiff again went into the box and finished her story. Witness related to the bench the events that happened when she arrived in Palmerston North and stated that the position offered her by Miss Newman was a junior one, which she would not accept. On being questioned by Mr Belling, witness insisted that she had worked for David Jones Ltd. in Sydney, in spite of counsel’s assertion that the Sydney firm denied ever having employed her. Miss Newman in Box. Miss Newman, proprietress of the “Hat Box” told the court of receiving an application from Miss Eastwick in reply to an advertisement. After detailing the corespondenoe leading up to plaintiff coming to Palmerston, witness gave an account of her first interview with Miss Eastwick, which was quite friendly. Witness stated that never in her life

had she ever had any drink during business hours. Miss Newman told Miss Eastwick that she wanted her to bo quite nice to customers, as her clientele was quite a quality one. Plaintiff seemed perfectly satisfied with the terms and duties as laid down by witness. Miss Eastwick came back to the shop at 5.30 p.m., when she stated that she had procured accommodation at the hostel. After asking what time work started in the morning, they said good-bye in the friendliest manner.

Witness expected to see plaintiff on the job next morning. She did not, however, witness receiving a letter about 9.30 a.m. from plaintiff stating that tho position had been misrepresented to her. The position offered to plaintiff had not been filled as yet. To Mr Ongley, Miss Newman stated that she had had two saleswomen in the shop since December 1927. There had only been three hands in the shop in two years. The position offered to Miss Eastwick was still open but it would require some consideration before offering her the position now particularly because Miss Eastwick had written her several letters including one marked ’’without prejudice.” The Magistrate: “I wonder where she got that idea?” Doris Newman, niece of the defendant, gave evidence as to the two interviews with Miss Eastwick on the day she arrived. Kate Elizabeth Smith related that she came to Palmerston North and assisted Miss Newman during the Christmas and New Year holidays. The porition advertised by Miss Newman was never offered to witness. This concluded the evidence and the Magistrate gave judgment as above. Defendant was allowed £8 solicitor’s fee and £2 7s 2d witnesses’ exponses.