DANCE-GIRL RESPONSIBILITY.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 232, 29 April 1868, Page 2

DANCE-GIRL RESPONSIBILITY.

The Grey River Argus has the following:—"Another 'dance-girl' case was heard at the Resideut Magistrate's Court on Thursday, the evidence in which revealed some curious facts. Mr R. B. Goff, late the proprietor of the Victoria Dancing Saloon, sued Mr Foyne, a casino proprietor residing at Charleston, for the sum of £IOO, as damages for the loss of the services of two dance girls which the defendant had enticed from his employ, the said danc6 girls being the hired servants of the plaintiff. It appeared that some few months ago the plaintiff brought over from Melbourne several young ladies who were engaged to dance at the plaintiff's house nightly for a fixed Eeriod at the salary of £2 per week, oon after their arrival, however, their attractions were considered bo valuable by rival ball-room proprietors that tempting offers were made to the damsels to induce them to desert. Amongst other candidates for their favors was the defendant in the present action, who by offering to give £4 per week wages persuaded Margaret Brittain and Mary Thomas to cast aside their lawful engagement and proceed with him to Charleston, there to dance in a terpsichorean hall named "The Casino de Venise.'' The rightful owner of the services of the fair ones, endeavored to prevent their leaving him, and served the defendant with a written

notice cautioning him against seducing the plaintiff's servants from his service. But this was of no use ; the girls went, aud according to Mr Q-ofTs evidence the profits of the Victoria Hall went with them to the extent of £7 or £8 nightly. This was bad enough, but what made the matter worse for the plaintiff was that these interesting and accomplished danseuses left just before the Eace week, to which the plaintiff had been looking forward as a highlylucrative period. Mr G-off stated in his evidence that he expected to clear Ll5O during the race week had the two girls in question not left him. But their unceremonious departure; their ingratitude, and the machinations of the rival employers of female labor so disheartened and disgusted the plaintiff that he disposed of his business. He substantiated his claim for the LIOO damages by estimating the lessened takings after the girls left, and the prospective profits of the Race week which he was unable to realise. It was elicited that whenever a " fresh lot of girls" arrives at a dancing saloon, business improves immensely for a time, and the two subjects of the present action appear to have drawn crowded houses for a week or two. The increase in the takings did not however keep up at the same rate up to the time of their departure, because, as the plaintiff naively observed, " they were not so fresh." The Magistrate in giving judgment said, that the defendent clearly infringed the law relating to master and servant, and gave a verdict for the full amount claimed (LlOO)with costs. The defendant did not appear.

The Grey River Argus of the 25th supplements the above with the following :—Goff v. Foyn.—This was a rehearing of the case in which a verdict had previously been given for the plaintiff in the sum of £IOO, for damages sustained through the defendant having enticed away the hired servants of the plaintiff. Mr Guinness, with whom was Mr Perkins, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Pitt for the defendant. The evidence for the plaintiff was substantially the same as on the previous occasion. The defence set up was that it was not the plaintiff, but a man named Sampson, who was the person who was the means of the girls leaving. Evidence was given in mitigation of damages, and the Magistrate gave judgment for the plaintiff for £BO and costs.