"A COLLEGE COURSE"

NZ Truth, Issue 868, 15 July 1922, Page 5

"A COLLEGE COURSE"

Simply a claim for wages alleged Ao bo due, there was nothing to suggest that the action .would be anything but one of the ordinary dry-as-dust cases set down for hearing on each Tuesday at the Auckland Magistrate's Court. However, a little bird whispered to "Truth" that there might be a very interesting story unfolded and the little feathered one proved a fine tipster. The parties to the action were Linda Hadley, a tailoress, who, by the way, was celebrating her 30th birthday, and she; claimed from Harry Leldon Colledge, flat proprietor, at No. 10 Princess Street, the sum of £41 8s 6d, as wages alleged to be due to her. • . „. Magistrate Cutten. refereed, Mr. Singer appearing for Linda, and Lawyer A. O'Donnell for Colledge. ■" • . Mr. Singer outlined the case ut some length, and then called the plaintiff. J Wnda Hadley, • ; A FRAIL PIECE OF . FRILLERY.

who had that morning just reached her 30th birthday, said that she was a tailoress, and m November, she. took a flat at Colledge's house at No ; 10. Princess Street. Before Christmas misconduct commenced between her nnd Colledge and they subsequently blew, the Seventh Commandment to smithereens. On December 30 Colledge offered her a job at the flats i nt,Bos a week, and she consented .to do the housework temporarily. This was during the holidays, and she then occupied a room at No. 2. flat., She. intended to return to his employment fes a tailoress but Harry— as she ! called Colledge— offered her £2 a week to work at the flats and shedecided to stay on. She was to be paid monthly to hold down the job of manageress. He did not pay her and at timed told her that he was pressed for money, but that it would be quite all right if she would wait. She didn't mind waiting — hot then— but she was- still waiting. She was. never given any wages book to sign. During the week prior to February 28 she had seen nothing of Colledge, but on that day she saw him and he said he wanted the key of her room for some tenants who were arriving. She asked him where she was going to sleep,, and he told her she could share the office with him until he could fix up a place for' her. About five o'clock that evening plaintiff told Mrs. Colledge that she and Colledge were going to the pictures that evening and that afterwards she was going to sleep m his office with him. On. May 15 she.loari'ed Colledge £50, because he said he had' to find his wife's costs, and that if he did not get the money elsewhere he would have to? get his partner to sign a cheque, and he did not want to do this. She drew the £50 out of the bank and the same day paid it to Mr. Goldstein, at Colledge's request. The receipt she got from Goldstein she later gave to Coliedge, because he said it would be sale with him. He then gave her an acknowledgment for the money. Wttien he asked for the loan of the £50 she asked how did she know she would get her wages". He then said, "Well* pet* you don't think I am a man like that?". She replied, "No; I'm sorry," and then agreed to lend hfm the money. The receipt for the money he left' for her In the office. He offered her no security for the £50 and told her that he would allow her interest at bank rate. He . promised to pay her her wages as soon as he could. On the Monday night, while the divorce proceedings were on between Colledge and his wife, Colledge asked plaintiff to go tip to his room. She refused, and he then said, "Well, never mind, Marie will." Plaintiff said, "Yes, I know, she was there last night." Marie was another girl who used to wear plaintiff's coat and red jersey and visit Colledge's room. Tenants thought it was plaintiff and would not speak to her, holding that

SHE WAS PRETTY BRAZEN

to continue after the divorce case. 'Plaintiff said she was going to leave. becatiSe he coiitinued to have Mario Visit his room. The following Friday she left. She asked for the wages due to her, but ;Colledge did not part up. Mr- O'Donnell: You claim . you commenced work on January . 1? — Yes. , r. And you claimed no wages before that?— No, . Do you deny that the arrangement was that you were to get £1 to start? Yes, I do deny it. It was to be 30s. Why do you claim £2 per week?— Because he agreed to pay me that. Did you recfeive. £5 from Colledge on or before January 31?— ' No. Did you teGeiVe £5 oh Mafch 3? — NO. ■ ' ■■■• : ,-■.■ ....- Didn't he tell you he would give you £5 per month on January 31?— No, he told me that if Marie had been the girl I was his business would have been paying long ago. Wasn't it arranged; you 'should receive money from tenants for cleaning their rooms? — No. Did you receive any ?^-Ohe tenant, paid hie £1 a. month, but it did not last long. . „ ... Complainant further denied that Coiledge asked her several times if Bhe were satisfied with what she wad getting. She had a room at the flat and the £2 per week she was to get was exclusive of board and lodgings. A tenant named Page had given, her £1 per month for two or three months.! She did not collect any money from aj. man named Andreal for cleaning his« room. She never told Colledge she; Was satisfied with the money she collected from the tenants. ■;■

You are well aware of the proceed?: ings taken by Mrs. Golledge against her husband?— Y^s. . Did you not s?gn three receipts for £8 for January, February and March, aiid give them to Coiledge?— No. : Did you have a conversation with Colledge the night before you left about your leaving?— The morning after the divorce I told him I was not staying. , . You left On a Friday?— Yes. . Did Colledge the night before offer you the amount he has riOW lodged m court m settlement Of your wages?— No. ' . „ ■ ■ Did you take from Colledge s drawer the three receipts which he alleges you gave him?, — No. . "\, ' ' You wouldn't do such a thing?— No. But you have done

WORSE THAN THAT

with Colledge, on your iown admissions,

Do you remember having a conversation with this girl you call Marie, who is a Miss Coyle?— Mr. Colledge warned me about her, saying her character was not the best. .

Did you not speak to her about the receipts?— How could I? There, were no receipts. About this £50. Did you not voluntarily offer him the loan of it?— No.

Now I put it to you: You knew a case was pending against Colledge by Iris wife? — Mr. Colledge asked me' to sign a statement that it was put up between me and Mrs. Colledge and said that if I did this Mis. Golledge would not go to court.

Mr. Singer: I might tell your Worship that the witness was the third party m the Colledge divorce. His Worship: I haven't a note of it, but I have it prominently m mind. Mr. O'Donnell: Are you now on friendly terms with Mrs. Colledge?-— NO. . . •;

LINDA LACKS HER LEGITIMATE LUCRE

Sues Successfully For Her Spondulicks

FREAKS OF A FAIR FRAIL PIECE OF FBILLERY

How is it that this seemingly trivial case has attracted Mrs. Colledge into this room (Mrs. Colledge was an interested spectator) ?— I don't know. Isn't this a trumped up case?— No. You say you have committed misconduct with Colled-ge?— Yes. - Have you ever made a . statement saying that you had riot .committed, misconduct with him?— Yes, he asked me to. He said he would stick tb me. I made the statement to Mr. Luxf ord, his solicitor.

That statement was not true? — No. But you would not steal the receipts from Colled«ge? — No. In the statement yoii made to a Solicitor you said that no misconduct had taken place between you £nd Colledge ?—4f it is m the statement, I said it. ' " •■.', -, . ' " ■■'■•■•■■ ■ .

Were you ever working m an hotel? —Yes, for a few months when I first came to Auckland. ;

You said that one reason why Colledge borrowed £50 was because he was short of cash ?— He sald< he did not want his partner to sign a cheque.

He made up his money every month and banked it? — 1 have banked money for "him myself. . ' "ODoyou remember him haying -some mbney on 1 top of a drawer on the night of January 28? — That was the night he asked me to . ,: ■ SLEEP IN HIS OFFICE. I did not see ,any money. . ;

'Managing Director, Victoria Laundry Co., Wellington). ,

I Cut all 'the fluffs from my collars and

■cuffs', ■ ■■•... The day they came home from the ChOw; Said, "Ge6, this is rough; I've had quite

enough; Henceforward I'm making a vow, To send tto more clobber to where it

. will be . Mangled and murdered — so mother end

me Now send all our togs to where Nal-

smith's In charge — And the smiles we now wear are en- "' 'during and large.

Do you remember at the office of Mr. Holloway, solicitor, Colledge offering to pay you what wages you were, entitled to, that is the £8 odd now paid into court?/"" 1 ]! remember him' admitting he owed me £50.

In answer to further qtieStiofts plaintiff said that Colledge had never definitely refused to pay her the £50 he borrowed. He told Mr. .Holioway he was willing to pay the £50, but he did riot owe her any wages.

Re-examined by Mr. Singer: Colledge has" only paid £5 2s ■■'Id* not the £50?— That's right.

This closed the case for the plaintiff; Defendant, Harry Leydon Obliedge, said that lie was proprietor of flats m Princ'ess-stfeet; He admitted employing the plaintiff, and at first she-* was to receive £ 1 per week. She thought that was. hardly enough, and *he pointed out that good money could be. obtained with perquisites. In addition she could attend to the flats rented by tenants, and they .would pay her according to the work done. 'He knew that tenants named Page and Andreal had paW her £1 per .month arid 15s per •week respectively. Defendant paid her £6 on January 31. Three nights previously- there was a conspdracy to

CATCH HIM WITH A WOMAN, sO that MrS. Coiiedge could obtain a divorce. He had also paid her £5 as payriteht of her wages for* .February, and on March 31 he again paid hei' £5. These payments were shown m the books produced. On the morning of January 81 'he told her she had 'been satisfactory! and that he would make her wages £5' per month. Another "perk" she had was the selling of the bottles. All told, he had paid lief £15 and when she was leaving she gave hiiti no notice ai all. Oh a Wednesday night she told him she .w&s leaving at once, but would riot give him any reason. He then said: "I had better pay you what I owe you," and offered her £10, two months' money. She said She would not take it, and added that it was up to him to give her something for standing by 'him m the case. He admitted; he owed her £8 10s, and this had been j)aid into court. Referring to the three receipts for the ■jwages paid her, they decided that £8 "would be a fair average of her earnings per month at the flats* Defendant and plaint'.tC tried to work out together her acttial earnings, and though he thought she had earned over £10 per month it was decided that to put the amoiint at £ 8 would be well within the mark. This would be four or five days before the hearing of the divorce case. Miss Hadley asked him to let her sign receipts 'for the full period, but he told her he did not want anything that could not be supported by facts and records. He then. wrote out three separate receipts for £8 each, put the necessary stamps on, and Miss Hadley signed them. The divorce finished on the Tuesday and two days later defendant missed the receipts. It was because of something he was told' that he looked for them. Referring to the £50 defendant" said that he was going to get a promissory note, endorsed, for £60 as security for his wife's costs. Miss Hadley was cited as corespondent. At this particular time he had £50 m the world. In the course of conversation with Miss Hadley.the latter said, "I got you into this mess, and it is only fair that I should get you out." The divorce case brought by his wife was not successful, the petition being withdrawn. ' 'Mr. Singer: With the consent of the court, and . under circumstances whicn do not matter here. ■ ■ Defendant, continuing, said ' that plaintiff 'had off t?red to lend him £50, and he acceptel the offer. She wanted no receipt, but he .insisted she should, have one ,

Mr. Singer: "Sou, of course, deny that there has been any misconduct between you and Miss Hadley?—-Abso-lutely.

Yet you admit that on the night which has been so freely mentioned, Miss Hadley and you were m the office together?— Tea. ..; ' ,

Miss Had-ley was m her pyjamas? — Now, you had >b«itter ■ BE CAREFUL, MR. SINGER. Never mind that. Was she m her pyjamas? — No. Was the door locked? — No. This was a conspiracy of two very wicked women according to you's— <By Jove, it was. When did you first learn that it was a conspiracy? — On February 23. When she told you? — Yes. Did you call her Linda? — No. You swear that?— Yes; I calleci her Miss Linda Hadley,' but never by her Christian name only.

Yet m spite of the girl being one of two women who had conspired against you, and that she had almost blackmailed you, you allowed her to stup m your employ from February 23 to May 26?— Yes.

And she would have been there now if she had not (walked out? — Yes.

Why did you take the £50 from her? —Because it was a means I had of holding her.

And the terms on iwhich you borrowed dt were that she could not get back more than £5 per 'month? And that the interest she was to get was the same as she would get at ' the Post Office?— That was her suggestion. And you thought it a (fair thing to take it? — Yea.

You were not called upon to pay any of your wife's oosts?— Not since the case collapsed.

■< I want an answer. Have you been called upon to pay one penny piece of your wife's costs? — The arrangement when the case was withdrawn from the Court was that I was not to be called upon to pay anything towards the wife's costs.

Have you or your solicitors paid your wife's costs? — No. . .

Why have you not paid the poor girl her £50 back? I—The1 — The money is there' to be paid back. The reason rwhy I have not paid it (baok is because • SHE IS TOO DANGEROUS. Now, why haven't you paid the £60 back? — I have kept to the agreement. I have not paid the money for a special reason* I am waiting till I have done with you or you with me.

Did you intend to bind her down that she could not claim more than £s. per month back of the £50 or interest >at the same rate as paid by the Savings Bank.

Miss Coyle is noiw working for you? —Yes.

At what wage ?— £ 5 a month and what she also receives from tenants.

YOU were astonished at Miss Hadley going to leave you?— Yes.

JDid she complain about another girl going about m her clothes? — No; I don't think so.

Now you say that the girl said something to you which you consider amounted to blackmail. Why didn't you pay her the £50 and have done withi !her?- r 'l intend* to pay when this case is finished. . .

. How much money have you how?— £60 or £70 m the bank.

And the amount of your liabilities?— Nil./ .

His . Worship : Notwithstanding that this girl, deliberately tried to blackmail you and that you only (wanted to keep her where you could have her m case Of trouble Coming along you succeeded m 'borrowing £50 from her? — Yes, but the loan was entirely her own suggestion. ■■■•-■

Marie Coyle, at present employed by Colledge at the flats, said. that he paid her £1 per week, but tenants also paid her money. She remembered on one occasion at the flat when the Colledge divorce ' case was oh, Linda Hadley saying that three separate monthly receipts for £ 8 each were no good, and that she intended to burn them and sue for five months' wages. They also spoke aJbbut the divorce case, and Linda said

"I WILL GET HIM YET."

On the morning of that day -witness had .put the three receipts m. question m a drawer m a desk, but on hearing Miss Hadley's threat she went to the desk and found the receipts were gone. As Colledge was not m witness rang Up Mr. Goldstein, solicitor. Witness Considered that her present job at the flats at £1 per week from Coliedge and "perics" from the tenants was the best she ever had.

Mr. Singer: Did you ever hear of Colledge borrowing £50 from Miss Hadley?— No. His Worship: YOU saw the receipts? — YesV

And saw they were three ■ Separate receipts each for £B?— Yes. And monthly receipts ?-^Yes; What was. ; the wording oh them?. — I don't kflow. I just read them. Did you ever visit Mr.. Colledge's room?— Never. ■' ■ , His Worship reserved his decision, and the following day gave judgment for the full amount claimed by the iplaintiff, with costs. * ,