A TAILORS’ DISPUTE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2567, 30 July 1909, Page 7

A TAILORS’ DISPUTE.

ALLEGED INCOMPETENCE. £IOO CLAIMED AS DAMAGES. In' the Magistrate’s Court yesterday Adolphus Jacob Zaohariah, tailor of Gisborne, sued William Frank Newsom, of Napier, tailor, for £IOO, damages to his business. h . Mr W. L. Rees, instructed by Messrs Rees Bros, and Bright, appeared for the plaintiff, and! Mr Stock 1 appeared for defendant. The plaintiff, in his statement of claim, alleged that under a written dated February Ist 1909, the defendant entered into his employment as cutter, general tailor, and foreman of his business at Gisborne'; that the • defendant represented himself as a fully qualified and experienced cutter in all branches of his work, including ladies’, gentlemen’s and military work; that such representation .was-, false in fact, and the defendant was not competent, and by reason of such riiisrepresentation the plaintiff had suffered loss and damage to his business and claimed £IOO. The plaintiff also alleged that defendant was grossly negligent in the discharge of his duties, and by reason of such negligence defendant had suffered damage to the extent of £IOO. Air Rees said the facts of the case were simple. The defendant entered plaintiff’s employ for one year with ■right to purchase the business. The defendant was to have the full management of the business, and represented himself as a- competent tailor. After defondant had been in charge of the business for about three months so many misfits were reported to the plaintiff and so many tailor-made suits, returned, that the agreement was cancelled. The plaintiff, in his evidence, said that when he took over the Record Reign Hotel ho found it was necessary to have a manager for his tailoring business and engaged the defendant. An agreement was drawn up and signed, and defendant entered upon his duties on February Ist 1909, and witness left the conduct of the business in his hands. Defendant left employment early in May, after serving lor 12 weeks. Defendant’s wife asked witness to relieve her husband of his duties as Gisborne was not agreeing' with her children’s health. Witness promised to comply when he could find a man to take his place, and defendant was allowed to leave. Witness took over the management of the business. Many complaints-were made by customers about the work done under defendant’s ' management. Many garments were sent back to be altered as they did not fit. He submitted a 1 list of customers who had returned clothes made by defendant, and witness had to make garments to replace them. He had had breeches returned by Messrs MacDonald and Sherratt. Mr Stock said he had no notice given of individual cases of ' dissatisfaction. Only a general allegation had been made and he had been taken, by surprise. 7 His Worship said the defendant' was entitled to have the case adjourned if he desired to inquire into each alleged case of misfit. Witness, continuing, said the value of the garments spoilt was oyer £4O, and the cost of remedying misfits was over £l7. He claimed £2B for 4 weeks’ work spent in rectifying work done by defendant. He had never had such a number of misfits in his business before. Ho had suffered loss in business through defendant’s incompetency to an extent of over £IOO. Mr Stock said he could not cross-ex-amine the witness on the evidence in relating to misfit garments, and asked that an adjournment be granted to allow him to go through.plaintiff’s books. The case was then adjourned until 2 p.m. to-dlay.