TROUBLE WITH A SERVANT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 3767, 28 February 1913, Page 6

TROUBLE WITH A SERVANT.

AN INTERESTING CASE

CLAIM FOR ALLEGED WRONGFUL DISMISSAL.

At ths Magistrate’s Court yesterday {Mr FI ora nee, S.M.), the adjourned case of Maud Clark, housemaid (Mr Coleman) v. John Barhes-Gra-ham'e, sheepfarmer (Mr Gurnard), a claim of £7 os 6d for alleged wrongful dismissal, was continued. Plaintiff deposed that she had interviews with Miss .Morrison, of the Auckland Labor Bureau, and in consequence of these she came to Gisborne and paid her own fare. Later, when witness inquired about the fare, Mrs Barnes-Grahame told her her fare had been paid. When witness arrived from Auckland she was met and sent to Hangaroa. On arrival at defendant’s place, Mrs Barnes-Grahame made apologies saying she had had trouble with the servants, and her last nurse had run away.' She said she was just about tired of cooking, and was glad witness had come. Witness told her she did not come as cook, and could not undertake the work. She had come as a child’s nurse, and was not strong enough to do the cooking. She was to look after the two younger children, her wages were to be £1 a week, and all her travelling expenses were to be paid. Mrs BarnesGrahame understood these were witness’ terms of engagement. Witness said she would do what she could to help Mrs Grahame until she_ got a cook. While witness was pegging out clothes, assisting the other-girl, defendant told her they were giving her £1 a week, and they expected a lot for that. Anything she was told to do she would have to do, and it would not bo a matter of obligement. Witness referred to the terms of her engagement. Defendant again told her sho would have to v do what she was told. Witness told him lie was a bully. Defendant said she was up there now, and would hare to stay. It was twelve miles to Waerenga-o-kuri, the nearest place to catch the coach. She told him he was a coward to speak like that, and that she was going to keep to her agreement. .Defendant appeared to be in a, furious temper. Later in the day, when witness asked defendant if he had not behaved badly to her, Mrs BarilSSGrahame said she could go. and defendant told his wife to send her back to Auckland. Witness said she would want herexpenses, and he would drive her as far as Waer-enga-o-kuri only. When she asked for a settlement, Mrs Grahame referred her to defendant, who had gone to Gisborne, but she had never had a settlement.

To Mr Burnard: She did not think cooking, general washing and scrubbing the kitchen, etc., were included in her duties. She had to look after two children. Mis 3 Morrison did nor show her the letter she had received from Mr Grahame. She did not read

it to her twice. Witness did not object to having her meals with the children. She asked if she might have a chair to sit on. She did not tell the

girl Joyce not to bring the meals to her when the children were there. She expected to clean the nursery and to look after the children’s clothes. She did not abuse Mr Graliame, nor did she say he was no bettor than a “black Maori,” or that he was no gentleman. On leaving Han gar oa she got a position with Mrs Barker, of Gisborne. She was not dismissed for impertinence from there. Mr Barnard, for the defence, said that the defendants were fighting the question on the matter of principle. Plaintiff had infringed the whole of her contract. John Barnes-Grahame, sheepfarmer, Hangaroa, defendant, deposed to communicating with the Labor Department at Auckland. He stated •that instructions were given for the fare to be forwarded to the Labor office at Auckland, but by mistake it went to the Union Company. Hitherto fares had been paid on the understanding that the servant stayed six months, but latterly it had been three months. W itness detailed a conversation ho had had with plaintiff as to what lie considered her duties, and these he enumerated. With regard to looking after the children’s clothes she said, “Oh, that is entirely for private arrangement.” She also said at the point that she had not seen the letter from Miss Morrison. After speaking about these things he said there must have been some misunderstanding if she did not think these were her proper duties. Plaintiff said she considered she had been brought under a misapprehension. In the course of conversations she called him a “Black Maori,” and said she was a New Zealand girl and he could not bully her. As he went away from the washing green plaintiff shouted, “What are you going to do now,” and he replied that he wanted her to do £lie work for which she was engaged. A few minutes after plaintiff called out, “Mr Grahame, I will expect ample apology from you this afternoon.” While standing at the shed door he saw plaintiff walking towards the Post Office. She did not come back till after dinner. She said that on account of Ids behaviour in the afternoon she could not possibly stay any longer, and that she required him to drive her to Gisborne the following day and pay all expenses. Witness replied he would not drive her to Gisborne, but would drive her to where she could got the coach. He did not see plaintiff again. Win, Henry Westbrook, Inspector of Factories, said that it was customary when the fare was paid for a person to stay a month at the situation. Mrs liarnes-'Grahame, in the course of her evidence, gave evidence of plaintiff complaining after her arrival of there being a misapprehension. Witness told plaintiff that she was sorry as “it had all been in black and white.” On the following day plaintiff wanted the matter settled up. Witness explained the duties. (Subsequently plaintiff made another request for settement, and demanded an increase of wages of over £1 per week. Witness said she could not give more, and would refer the matter to her husband, which lie did. Witness detailed the interview that resulted, as defendant had previously deposed, in plaintiff abusing her hushfind and calling him names. Subsequently plaintiff demanded to be taken to town. She declined to do the duties, and was afterwards driven to Waerenga-o-kuri. She denied that plaintiff was requested to do cooking and certain other frrork* Joyce Mun'ro, employed in domestic by defendant, also gave evidence, Ti'» Magistrate intimated that he would deliver judgment at 10 a.m. i to-morrow. I