A TAILORS’DISPUTE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2569, 2 August 1909, Page 3

A TAILORS’DISPUTE.

ALLEGED INCOMPETENCE

£IOO CLAIMED AS DAMAGES

The hearing of the civil case in which Adolphus J. Zachoriah, of Gisborne,, tailor, claimed £IOO damages against William Frank, Newsom. of Napier, tailor, was further continued in the Magistrate’s Court, before Mr. W. A. Barton, oil Saturday. Mr. W. L. Rees, instructed by Messrs Rees Bros, and Bright, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. G. Stock for the defendant. In continuing the evidence for the defence, Mr. Stock called George Greer Sliierlaw, tailor, of Gisborne, who maid ho had ‘known the defendant by repute for some years. "Witness had always heard that defendant was a good cutter and fitter. Witness was a tailors’ cutter and he often had garments returned for alterations. It often happened that people were dissatisfied with garments when there was no cause for dissatisfaction. In his .experience a cutter was at a disadvantage in a new business during the first two or three months, but that disadvantage would not be through neglect. Lattice’ costumes were more difficult to make than men’s suits, lie was prepared to engage Mr. Newsom as a cutter if he had a vacancy. To Mr. Rees: If he had 14 suits -rejected and 40 or 50 suits returned for alterations within three months it would damage his business. Hugh J. McClymont also gave expert evidence as to the number of rejected garments a tailor might have in his business. To Mr. Rees: He was cutter for Mr. Zachariah for one month. He had no rejected garments in his own business. John Sheridan said he knew defendant, who had made clothes for him for about 12 years. Witness had never had any reason to find fault with the work. The defendant said he had been following the occupation of a tailor for about 25 years in Melbourne and New Zealand. He was employed by Messrs. Veitch and Allen, Wellington, for ten years, and left to go to Brown, Ewing, and Co., Dunedin. He was afterwards cutter for the D.1.C., Wellington, then in business on liis own account for 2i years, and afterwards with Bates •and* Bees, Wellington. He left Wellington to come to Gisborne, arid then went to Messrs. -Blythe and Co., Napier. He had never had any complaints as to his work from an employe] - , but had had complaints from customers. Such comnlaints were common to all cutters. After he had been managing plaintiff’s business for about three months lie asked to be relieved of his engagement as Gisborne was not agreeing with his wife’s health. Plaintiff at first refused to release witness from his agreement and asked him to buy the business. Plaintiff never made any complaint as to faulty work, but it was ultimately arranged that the engagement-' - should cease on May Ist. On the Saturday morning, when witness was leaving Gisborne, plaintiff complained about a costume , that had been returned for alterations. Witness had reason to find fault with the workmanship of the business. It had had goods rejected by customers when the garments were faultless. Witness had cut garments from measurements taken by plaintiff, and faults had been found. The faults in Miss McLean’s costume were due to carelessness in the workroom. He made the second costume himself, and saw it on Miss McLean before it was sent home. He received no complaint about it. , . To. Mr. Rees: He was'anxious.for hjs wife’s sake to go to Napier, lie made up his mind to go about April . loth. He did not apply for the position m Napier. He was offered the appointment, but the salary was not stated in the letter he received. He had consented to go to Napier before the fact was advertised in the Hawke’s Bay papers. He did not accept the Napici position before Mr. Zachariali consented to rescind his engagement. •' _ Helen Newsom, wife of defendant, said she had a conversation with plaintiff on April 17, and she asked that her husband be relieved from liis engagement as Gisborne did not agree with the children’s health. Plaintiff said ho would either sell the business or get another cutter. Robert Johnston gave expert evidence as to the qualifications of a tailor’s cutter.

F. J. Wilson, architect, said he knew defendant, who had satisfactorily made clothes for him. Mr. Stock then closed the evidence for the defence, and Mr. Rees said he -would apply for the right to call rebutting evidence. The 'case was then adjourned until this afternoon.