A TAILORS’DISPUTE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2570, 3 August 1909, Page 3

A TAILORS’DISPUTE.

ALLEGED INCOMPETENCE. £IOO CLAIMED AS, DAMAGES. The hearing of tlxo civil case in which Adolphus J. Zachariah, tailor, of Gisborne, claimed £IOO from William E. Newsom, of Namier, for damages alleged to have resulted to plaintiff’s business through defendant’s incompetence as a cutter whilst in his employ, was continued before Mr. W. A. Barton, S.M. in the • Magistrate’s Court yesterday xuiernoon.

Mr. VV . L. Rees intimated that he did not desire to call evidence in rebuttal.

His Worship said tho evidence that the. defendant was a competent and qualified tailors’ cutter was overwhelming, and the only question there was to decide was if the defendant was so negligent in his work while employed by plaintiff as to cause loss to-Zach-ariah’s business. Mr. Stock addressed tho Court at length upon the question as to whether the evidence has shown that defendant was guilty of negligence. As far as he was aware there was not a case on record where a master had brought an action against a servant for damages for negligence, and it was doubtful if such an action could be brought. Even if the action was valid the evidence had shown that defendant. came to Gisborne with the highest recommendations, and was fully ’qualified in every way. Witnesses had shown that it took a few months for a cutter to become accustomed to a new staff and a new class of trade, therefore his Worship would have to be satisfied that the misfits were the faults of the defendant. They might be assumed to lie to defendant’s fault, or to the fault of the work-room staff, but the misfits had not been proved to have resulted from defendant's carelessness. In certain cases defendant might have been guilty of an error of judgment, but surely the Court would not award damages for an error of judgment. Allowance would have to bo made for the fact that defendant was new to the class of tailors’ trade done in Gisborne, but because of this lie could not be held to be incompetent or even guilty cf carelessness. Mr. Rees quoted authorities to show' that a servant was liable to his master if gross carelessness was proved. Mr. Newsom came to Gisborne to take entire control of plaintiff’s business, and was therefore- responsible for the full conduct of the business. It was the duty of an overseer to see that the suits were sent out fit to be worn. The evidence went to show that that had not been done, and not one of . the witnesses swore that they had had such a largo number of rejected garments as was tlio case during defendant’s management of jjlaintiff’s business. It bad been shown that more disasters had occurred during defendant’s management than during the ten years previous. The evidence showed that the business had been conducted _ with gross negligence and that negligence had seriously damaged plaintiff’s business.

His Worship said he had very little doubt as to what his judgment would be, but it woxild be more satisfactory to all parties to have a written judgment, and therefore his decision would be reserved.