DISPUTED AGENCY

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LII, Issue 17175, 27 October 1926, Page 12

DISPUTED AGENCY

ENGAGEMENT ESTABLISHED PLAINTIFFS SUCCEED Judgment .was given for the plaintiffs, for a proportion of the amount claimed in the civil action heard before Mr.-E. C. Levvcy, S.M., in, the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon, in which a married couple alleged that they had been engaged for work in a country hotel, but that after the agreement was completed they were refused employment. The plaintiffs, K. Parry and his wife, Ellen Parry, proceeded jointly and severally against J. J. Box, licensee of the Wae-rengn-o-kuri hotel, and Mrs. E. E. Head, proprietress of the To Rata labor agency, claiming £2;>. Mr. A. Whitehead appeared for the plaintiffs, Mr. J. 'S. "Wauchop for the defendant Box, and Mr. E. T. Brosnnhan for the- defendant Head. JNjtr. Whitehead called the defendant, Evelyn Ellen Head, and Mr. Brosnahan rose to request the right, to warn his client. The Magistrate pointeM out that Mr. Brosnahan had the right of crossexamination. Giving evidence, Mrs. Head told the court how the plaintiffs came to be engaged. It was in consequence of witness ringing the- registry office at Napiet that the plaintiffs came from Napier. When Mrs. Parry learnt for which hotel they had been ejigaged she said Mr. Box might not take them. Witness communicated with Mr. Box about this matter, and he, informed her that he could not take tho couple. Witness thought this would be all right, as Mr. Box did not want tho couple, and Mrs. Parry did not want ;to go.

To Mr. Wauchop witness gave it as her opinion that tho plaintiffs were definitely engaged. In other cases in which she had been instrumental in bringing about appointments at the Wacrenga-o-kuri hotel she had not always referred the applicants to Mr. Box. Mrs. Parry objected to going to the hotel when she learnt that it was Mr. Box for whom she was to work, but sho did not deiinitely refuse to go. No arrangement was made for the .payment of tho plaintiffs' fares. In an hotel the employees were entitled to only 48 hours' notice, under the award.

Questioned by Mr. Brosnahan','w-it-nesS said that Mr. Box did not always sec the employees ho engaged until they actually arrived; ho simply told witness .what his requirements were, and left her to till them. NON-SUIT PLEA FAILS

Mr. Brosnahan moved for a uon-sufc on tho ground that his client, Mrs. Head, was merely an agent. Mr. Wauchop submitted that there was no ease against Mr. Box. From Mrs. Head's statement it was evident that. Mrs. Parry refused to go to the hotel. Before Mrs. Head could complete tho engagement the plaintiffs said they would not take the situation. Mr, Whitehead said that, for Mr. Brosnahan to succoed'with a non-suit ho must establish that his client was not a party to the transaction. When

pressed by Mrs Wauehop, Mrs. Head was emphatic that the plaintiffs did not refuse to go out to the hotel. The Magistrate said#ho was satisfied that the plaintiffs were prepared to go out to tho hotel, and he would not apply the non-suit. Joseph Edward Head deposed that Mr. Box did not offer any objection to tire couple going out, when he discussed the matter with Mrs. Head at tho agency:

Mr. Wauchop, for his defence, submitted that Mrs Head was not employed to engage. If engagements were made on those lines no one would ever bo engaged—it would be unsafe. *tv making any appointment Mr. Box always made searching enquiries about them. The agency simply submitted tho names to tho employer, and the contract, was not ratified until, the employer was satisfied. Mr. Box would say that it was no part of Mrs. Head's duty to engage, but to bring the applicants to him. On tho question of jdamages: Mr. Wauchop said the position was absurd. On the plaintiffs' own evidence they had not lost employment, and if they were entitled to anything the most they could claim was for wages for 48 hours.

The Magistrate said he was satisfied that the defendant Head was generally authorised to engage the plaintiffs, although Mr. Box may have reserved the right to make enquiries, but those enquiries were not- made. That absolved her from liability in that connection. It was also evident to the court, that there was an engagement, and it did not seem quite accurate that the plaintiffs refused to take the situation. 'Judgment would be given against the defendant Box for £8 and costs. The defendant Head had been foolish, but the case against her would be dismissed.