A TAILORS’ DISPUTE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2573, 6 August 1909, Page 7

A TAILORS’ DISPUTE.

ALLEGED INCOMPETENCE.

PLAINTIFF NON SUITED

In the Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning Mr. W. A. Barton., S.M. delivered judgment in the case of Adopphus Jacob Zachariah (Mr W. L. Rees, instructed by Mr. H. Bright) v. William Frank Newson (Mr. G. Stock), a claim for tire recovery of £IOO for alleged damage to his business, while defendant was acting as manager. The Magistrate, in the course of his judgment, said:—“The plaintiff claims to recover from the defendant the l sum of £IOO under the following statement of claim: The plaintiff says—(l) That under a written agreement, dated the Ist day of February, 1909, the defendant entered into the employment of the plaintiff as cutter, general tailor, and foreman in the business of the plaintiff, carried on in Gisborne. (2) That by and in such agreement the defendant expressly represented that he was a fully qualified and experienced cutter in all branches of the tailoring trade, including ladies', gentlemen’s and military work. (2a) (amendment to claim) In pursuance of such employment, the defendant’s work was so inefficient and faulty that the plaintiff suffered great injury and loss thereby to his business and incurred expenses and loss of time in consequence of such inefficient and faulty work. (3) That such representation was, in fact, false, and the defendant was not competent in the said branches of the tailoring trade. . (4) bv reason of the misrepresentation the plaintiff has suffered loss and damage to his business. Wherefore the plaintiff claims as damages the sum of £IOO. As alternative claim the plaintiff says: (.1) lie repeats paragraph 1 and 2 of his first Haim; (2) that the defendant was grossly negligent in the discharge ox his said duties : (3) by reason of such negligence the plaintiff has suffered loss and damage in bis said business. V hereto re the plaintiff claims, as damages,, the sum of £IOO. There is no evidence whatever in support of the allegation of misrepresentation; on the contrary, the evidence proves beyond all doubt that defendant is fully competent ax all branches of the trade, as represented by him. The only other question therefore, is, was the defendant so grossly negligent in the discharge oX his duties as* to render him liable in this action. The law provides that evorv servant is bound to take due and proper care of liis master’s property entrusted to him, and if guilty of negligence, whereby his .master’s property is injured, he will be liable in an action. It is true that there was a considerable number of kills and misfits duxing the time defendant was in charge, of plaintiff’s business, but in my opinion the cause has been reasonably and satisfactorily explained. According to the the evidence it does not necessarily follow that the defendant alone is responsible for them, as all members of the trade agree that workmen are as often to blame for kills and misfits as the cutter. The evidence further shows that a cutter and fitter coming to a new district is at a- considerable disadvantage for the first three months, owing to the different class of trade between a city and a town such as Gisborne, and also from want of knowledge of the workmen employed under him, and that consequently more and misfits are likely to occur than jou.d probably happen after he had got used to the hands and the class of trade in the district. One witness remarked that to ensure good work there must he sympathy between the workmen and cutter, that is, that they much perfectly understand each other s ways and ideas; and for this reason most of the witnesses agree that plaintiff should have remained with defendant a sufficient time to have given him a general knowledge of the class of trade which was carried on in his establishment before, leaving him in charge ox the business. Defendant was only in plaintiff’s service three months, and during that time only one complaint was made against him of the misfitting of one of the garments. which lie had cut, but after he had left plaintiff s service and plaintiff resumed control of the business "many complaints, were made in relation to kills and misfitting garments ; but it must be borne m mind that the defendant, having left the plaintiff’s service before the kills .and misfits were brought back to the shop, he had no opportunity of rectifymg them • and defendant says that had he remained in the plaintiff’s service he could have remedied what ivas complained of. He further says that the cutter who had charge of the work could rectify any defects better than anv other person, and this is borne out by' other witnesses. Under clause o ot the agreement made between the parties, the defendant had the right to purchase the business of plaintiff, and that being so, it appears to me to be unreasonable to suppose that defendant would have wilfully done faulty work, as it was clearly in his interest to have endeavored to keep up the excellent reputation which lie had m the trade. I am unable to find upon tne evidence before me that defendant has been guilty of gross negligence m the(discharge of his duties to the plaintiff. 1 am of the opinion that he discharged his duties to the best of his ability m the interests of plaintiff.” . . Mr Bright, on behalf of plaintiff, intimated that he desired to accept a non-suit, which was granted. ■ Costs were assessed as follows: exists of court l'Bs, witnesses’ expenses £4, Napier costs £2 17s 6d, solicitors fee £5.