MALL CASEARGUED AGAINBEFORE STARRCourt Orders Memoranda in Action of Seamstress Against Mrs. CrossA jury's disagreement ot a month ago in trial of the $210 cliam of Mrs.' Mary Newhall, seamstress, against the wealthy Mrs. William 33. Cross of Highland View Park, reverberated again in City Court today in verbal argument of counsel on a motion to dismiss Mrs, NewhaU’s complaint.City Judge Howard M. Stair reserved decision on that motion when it was originally made during the trial by P. E. Buttenheim, 'Mrs. Cross’ attorney. Today the court's answer was again postponed when the magistrate called for memoranda to be submitted within a week.If a motion is denied, in accordance with the wishes of Mrs. New-iiaU’s counsel. Maurice Travers, a second trial will be required.Such a trial possibly would be even more warmly contested than the first, for today Mr. Buttenheim characterized the claim of Mrs. Newhall, a widow, as a “hold-up which Mrs. Cross would “fight tothe last ditch. J“We’ve apparently reached apaleaPasuJto]cei.lovriash;y«fthe1wa*erequino?befasuitthe-point in this country when the ques- ha.\vijon is not whether the poor man wSJ. receive justice but whether the person of means is going to get justice.’’ argued Mr. Buttenheim. Basis of Mrs. Newhall’s claim washer allegation that on May twelfth, 1932 she made an-oral contract with Mrs. Cross to be employed by her for one year and that because she was discharged last January she had unjustly suffered loss ol $240 in wages and board. Mrs. Cross denied having made the contract and said that in accordance with “custom the country over” Mrs. Newhall when released was given two weeks’ advance salary—$30.dectenfelthavexbseleloolV. S. BLOCKS WHEAT^ /in nr tin ijiTengwhcOnthemeiemifreechC'meiehaand