At the Limerick Assizes yesterday, a case was heard before the Lord Chief Baron and a city common jury, with Mr Ambrose Hall, Jr., serving as the foreman. Miss Mary Richardson sued Mr Burke, a licensed publican of Cathedral Place, for £64 in wages that she claimed were owed to her for services rendered. Mr C. Doyle, QC (instructed by Mr James Doyle, solicitor), appeared for the plaintiff, while Mr M. Bourke, QC, with Mr P. Lynch, BL (instructed by Mr Ebrill, solicitor), represented the defence.
Mr Doyle, QC, in his opening statement, explained that the plaintiff was the niece of the late Mr Burke, the defendant’s husband, and also the niece-in-law of the defendant herself. Several years ago, the late Mr Burke asked the plaintiff to come and live with them and later inquired about her preferred trade, to which she responded dressmaking. Consequently, she was apprenticed to the dressmaking business. However, circumstances arose when Miss Hennessy, employed by Mr Burke as a barmaid with an annual salary of £8, got married, creating a vacancy in the household. Mr Burke then asked the plaintiff to give up dressmaking and work for him instead, filling the position vacated by Miss Hennessy on the same terms of £8 per year. The plaintiff agreed, left the dressmaking business, and entered Mr Burke’s employment under the mentioned terms. After several years, Mr Burke passed away, but the plaintiff continued working for his widow.
Miss Richardson would testify that on one occasion, Mrs Burke, the defendant, offered her £170 to cover the outstanding salaries and secure her permanent services for the future. However, this offer was never acted upon, and in fact, the plaintiff never received any money from either Mr or Mrs Burke. She did receive £3 from the late Mr Burke at one point, but Mrs Burke later took it back as a loan and never repaid it. In conclusion, counsel stated that there was a clear understanding that Miss Richardson would be paid at the same rate as her predecessor.
During the plaintiff’s examination, she confirmed the counsel’s statement. She mentioned that her uncle was insured for £200, and Mrs Burke informed her on one occasion that she would receive £170. The defendant promised her the same terms as her uncle. The plaintiff left the defendant’s employment in 1902 and was currently engaged at Fox’s Hotel on Thomas Street. In cross-examination by Mr Burke, the plaintiff admitted that she had not demanded the outstanding salaries from Mrs Burke until she left the employment.
Mr Burke, the brother of the plaintiff’s deceased uncle, testified to hearing a conversation at the defendant’s house regarding Miss Richardson’s payment of £8 per year for her services in the household. This concluded the plaintiff’s case.
Mr Burke, QC, addressed the jury on behalf of the defence, arguing that there was no such agreement as suggested between the plaintiff and the defendant. He contended that the action was not genuine, as a significant portion of the claimed amount was barred by the statute of limitations, and the case could have been easily tried by Judge Adams. The plaintiff was recalled and questioned about an agreement in the defendant’s ledger, from which a page had been torn out, and on which the agreement with her uncle was alleged to have been written. The defendant, when examined, stated that her business was not flourishing, and the plaintiff came to work for her in 1895. She denied any agreement regarding payment of £8 per year and admitted to receiving letters from the plaintiff claiming the money after the plaintiff had left her employment. The defendant also denied making any promise to pay the plaintiff £170 from the insurance on her husband’s life.
In his address to the jury, Lord Chief Baron stated that £24 13s 4d was the maximum amount that the plaintiff could recover. This sum would represent wages for four years and one-third of a year. Since the writ was issued in November 1903, anything prior to 1897 would be barred by the statute of limitations. If the jury considered the question of damages, they should bear in mind that the mentioned sum was the highest amount the plaintiff could recover. Outside the damages issue, the case involved an important and serious question as both parties were giving opposing testimony. It was the jury’s responsibility to determine where the doubt lay. After a short deliberation, the jury found in favour of the plaintiff, awarding damages in the amount of £34 14s 4d.
Limerick Echo – Tuesday 08 March 1904
