WOMEN'S QUARREL.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 121, 27 June 1914, Page 3

WOMEN'S QUARREL.

TALE OF A BOARDING-HOUSE.

AN "ARMED NEUTRALITY."

A dispute between two women who ran a Hampstead (Eng.) boardinghouse was discussed in an action before Mr .Justice Neville last month. Miss Irene Beatrice Kerniek, a goodlooking young woman, gave evidence that early last year she got iuto communication with a Mrs Anne Humphries, and went to board and lodge with her.

Thev became very friendly, and it was ultimately arranged that they should run a boarding-house together in King Henry 's Eoad, South Hampstead.

Mrs Humphries, who was to be at the house during the whole of the day, was to take two-thirds of the profits, and Miss Kerniek, who was engaged in another business during the day, was to take one-third. Miss Kerniek is now askiug for damages from Mrs Humphries for breach of partnership, and she also asks for a dissolution of the partnership. Trouble . Over a Maid. She proceeded to tell the court how trouble arose. She uesd to get up at 6.30 in the morning, she said, and look after the servants. Mrs Humphries

did not get up until later. There was a disagreement last August about a maid whom the witness had reproved. Then there was a "great rupture" about the maid on August 9. Miss Kernick said she went away for a holiday. At this time she received a letter from Mrs Humphries, saying:— "It is impossible to live with this attack in camp. I have the work to do and nothing for it. You have board and lodging free. I get the abuse." In another letter Mrs Humphries said that she was feeling very ill. On received this letter Miss Kernick wrote, addressing Mrs Humphries as "Dear Humphry" and, asking to be forgiven if she had written anything unkind. » Mrs Humphries replied: —"Dear Kernick, —1 believe all you say, but do not come out, as I am so ill.'' "I think I had better come back," wrote Miss Kernick, and she did so. Notice to Quit. Returning from her . work on August 25 she found herself unable to get into the house with her latch-key. After she had rung and knocked for some time Mrs Humphries came and opened the door. Dinner was going on, and Miss Kernick went and. took her place at the table. She then received a letter from Mrs Humphries' solicitor saying:—"My client informs mo that last night you again presented yourself and created a disturbance by hammering at the front door. I must again point out to you .that you-have no "legal right to be on the -premises.- It. is my client's house, and '-she' pays the rates and taxes, and she has given you notice to qqit."

Cross-examined: Miss Kernick said that-she is still living at the house. The Judge: it is a case of armed neutrality, I -suppose? (Laughter.)

The witness then told counsel that she is engaged dining the day as a saleswoman. It was not true that when she first met Mrs Humphries she was owing money to a solicitor in respect to a dispute with another lady with whom she had been in partnership. Giv ing evidence for the defence, Mrs Humphries said that there was no agreement, of partnership. It was thought that there might be a partnership in the future. The servants resented .the way in which Miss Kernick spoke to them. A Revolting Scene. Mrs Humphries spoke of a discussion about servants which took place in the kitchen. She wanted to leave the room, but Miss Kernick put her back against the door. Counsel: Did Miss Kernick mention to you au uncle who was a baronet f No. She said he was a company promoter. Asked whether the boarding-house had been a success Mrs Humphries said there had been a loss of £BO.

A letter vfas read in which Miss Kernick, referring to the kitchen incident, said: "That terrible scene was too revolting for words." The letter added, "As long as I am a partner T insist on being treated with respect. Your behaviour to me in the presence of the .servants is not becoming to a lady of refinement." ■ His Lordship hold that there was no concluded agreement, and dismissed the action, with cost;*.