LADIES DIFFER.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume III, Issue 699, 8 May 1916, Page 10

LADIES DIFFER.

AN EXPENSIVE SCRATCH. CHARWOMAN ASSAULTED BY MISTRESS. SCHOOLTEACHER'S WIFE TO PAY DAMAGES. A row between a school teacher's wife and a charwoman occupied the attention of Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court to-day. The parties were Agnes Groom (plaintiff) and Ida G. Hunnibell, wife of Arthur'Hunnibell, a teacher at the West Christchurch School, who was joined with Mrs Huunibell as a defendant in the action. Mrs Groom claimed £lO as damages for an assault committed at Opawa on March 28. Mr A. T. Donnelly appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Hunter for defendant. Mr Donnelly stated that plaintiff had been working as a charwoman at defendant's house at Opawa. She had been so engaged two or three times a week for about 12 months. On the day of the assault a difference of opinion arose between Mrs Groom and Mrs Hunnibell as to the payment of wages and tram fares by defendant. On leaving the place, plaintiff took with her a concession tram ticket to her by defendant for payment of fares. Mrs Hunnibell demanded it back, but plaintiff refused to hand it back until she was' paid certain tram fares due to her. Mrs Hunnibell used an insulting expression to Mrs Grotom, and then assaulted her, tearing her dress and scratching her face. Plaintiff left behind her, as a trophy of war, a set of aprons. A day or two after, plaintiff went back to retfirn the tram ticket and to ask for her aprons. It was alleged that Mrs Hunnibell then recognised her liability for damages, and offered, a cheque, and appealed that the matter should not be taken into court. It was also alleged that Mrs Hunnibell said that if the matter were taken into court she would commit suicide. "That," observed counsel, "seems to me to be rather excessive reparation, und.er the circumstances." Mrs Groom gave evidence as outlined by counsel. She said that Mrs Hunnibell, just before assaulting her, addresed her thus: "You d Brummagen slum-cat." Mr Hunter invited the Magistrate to compare the physique of the two parties to the row, but Mr Bishop retorted: "An excited woman can do almost anything," and he declined to take into judicial consideration the fact that Mrs Groom is plump, while Mrs Hunnibell is not. Mr Hunter scrutinised very long and carefully a scar on the plaintiff's rather prepossessing face, which scar was declared to be a relic of the assault. Plaintiff bore, quite unmoved, that scrutiny, and also .Mr Hunter's cross-examination. She explained that Mrs Hunnibell's offer of financial reparation was accom-; panied by a remark that it was: "blackmail," and so she (plaintiff) j would not accept it, except through a solicitor.

Constable Wilson, of Ferry Road, to whom Mrs Groom had complained of the assault, deposed to having seen the scratch on plaintiff's face. He rang up Mr Hunnibell, who denied that his wife had assaulted plaintiff. Mrs Hunnibell stated in her evidence that she had paid Mrs Groom 5/- a day and her tram fares to and from work. In the middle of the day in question Mrs Groom demanded an increase to 6/-, and said that if she did not get it she would go. Witness replied that she would not pay more that day, but would consider the matter. Witness went on to allege that at 5 o'clock the. plaintiff started to depart without having finished her work. Witness asked for the tram ticket. Mrs Groom refused to hand it over, and witness then took out of plaintiff's arms a parcel containing the aprons. She did not use any force in doing so, and she denied the rest of plaintiff's story. Her explanation of the insulting remark ascribed to her was that Mrs Groom called her a blackguard, and she replied: "One would think you were from the slums of Birmingham." She knew that plaintiff came from Birmingham. Mrs Hunnibell's version of the interviews following the row was different from plaintiff's. She said thai plaintiff tried-to blackmail her. In cross-examination, Mrs Hunnibell admitted that she asked plaintiff to work for her on the Friday following the assault, even though Mrs Groom had been "blackmailing" her. She saw no risk in being in the house alone with a woman who had tried to "blackmail" her. She was suiting her own convenience in asking plaintiff to work for her again until she could get someone else to work for her permanently. In the course of cross-examination Mrs Hunnibell ejaculated: "You don't get much respect in New Zea-

land from the working classes at all." Mr Hunnibell gave evidence corroborative of those portions of his wife's testimony which affected interviews at which he had been present. He said it was partly on his advice that Mrs Hunnibell asked plaintiff to go back to work on the Friday after the assault. In answer to Mr Donnelly, he said he failed to see that there was any risk in his wife being alone in the house with a woman who had demanded money from her on a false charge. At the close of the evidence the Magistrate succinctly gave his decision. '1 am perfectly satisfied," i said he, "that there was an assault. I Judgment for plaintiff for £2 and I costs."