POULTRY FANCIERS.

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 240, 11 October 1888, Page 5

POULTRY FANCIERS.

BEFORE THE COURT.

The case arising out of the last show of the Auckland Poultry, Pigeon, Canary, and Dog Association came on in the Residen Magistrate's Court this morning, before Mr H. G. Seth Smith, R.M. In this Edward Timms Cartwright is plaintiff, and AH. Grainger, George Hulme, Franci s Stephens, Charles Bartley, A. E. Dewes. C. Grey, F. G. Haszard, E. Haywood' |W. G. Knight, H. E. Martin, T. S. Mor" peth, C. Phillipps, T. Phillips, G. Fowler, 1 VV. Waddell and George Cruickshank, defendants. The particulars of the I demand have already appeared in our columns, and amount in all to £9 17s, made up of £1 15s for overcharges in entrance fees, and £8 2s* the value of prizes, certificates, &c, alleged to have been won ab the last show by the plaintiff. The case had been adjourned early last month for the purpose of obtaining certain evidence from Christchurch, and which evidence was received last Tuesday. Mr E. W. Burton appeared for the plaintiff, Mr Thomas Cotter and Mr Tneo. Cooper for the sixteen defendants. The plaintiff, Edward Timms Carbwrighb, was examined ab considerable length. His evidence went to show that the Poultry Association held a show last July. The witness had received a placard (produced) of the show from the Secretary, Mr E. S. V. Mowbray. The names on the placard as President, Vice - President, Committee, and Treasurer were the names of the defendants in this action. He saw the Secretary of the show on July 12th, and was informed that • entries could be received up till the eleventh hour of sending the catalogue to the printers. He made a note of the fact at the time in his pocket - book in Mr Mowbray's presence. On the loth July, witness made entries for the show. He was told by the Secretary that Mr Graineer had sent a telephone message to say that no more entries were to be received. He then showed the Secretary the memo in his pocket-book, and asked him what he would do. After a moment's reflection Mr Mowbray said he could take his entries, and did so, but said he had bebter leave bhe matter of the fees over, so that he (witness) might see the Committee. Witness saw Mr Mowbray the next day, and was informed that the Committee had decided to take his entries on the payment of double fees. He at first refused to do so, but finally paid under protest, saying that at the proper time he would demand a refund. He sent a letter demanding a refund. This letter was produced, and mentioned that certain entries had been taken without the payment of double fees. He received an unsatisfactory reply, and afterwards saw Mr Mowbray in the presence of the defendant Francis Stephens, and a Mr Davis. Witness demanded the payment of £1 15s entry fees thab had been improperly charged him, money prizes, special prizes and certificates that he had won at the date show. The Secretary said, "One moment," then drew out a cheque book and placed a cheque (produced) on the table, At the same time he laid down a receipt. Ho took up the cheque and found it was signed Edward S. V. Mowbray,; then read the receipt and said, " What is ! this for?" Mr Mowbray said "That's fori the amount of the fees you paid me under protest." Witness said, " Does i this come from the Association ? because I see ib is nob signed by you as Secretary of the Poultry Association." He said, " Yes, it's my cheque." Witness said, "I can't take your cheque. There's nothing between you and me, and neither will I sign that receipt." Witness also said, " If you'll sign the cheque as Secretary I'll give ybu a receipt for it as from the Association." He •said}-*' "No," I can't do that." iMr Stephens said : '■' You'd better take it. You sign that receipt and I'll cash the cheque." Witness declined to sign the receipt and said, " You positively refuse to pay me what I have demanded?" Mr Mowbray said, II Yes," when the witness left. Ib was admitted that the birds were exhibited, also the value of the prizes.' Witness stated ( that he knew he won the prize iQ question, 'because he saw the prize tickets on the pens, and also from the printed catalogue (produced). He applied on August 13th for his prizesj and on the same day received by post a letter from Mr Mowbray, dated August 16th, notifying him that it had been alleged that one of the birds exhibited by him was nob his bona fide property, thus breaking one of the rules of the Society. In consequence of this the Committee had decided that the prizes should not be given him until after the annual meeting of the Society unless he could disprove the allegation. He had not been summoned to attend the meeting at which this resolution was passed.—Mr Cotter stated thab no written protest had been received, but the record of the allegation and the resolution were on the minute book of the Society.

The case is continuing as we go to press, and as there are several witnesses to be examined and several subtle points of law were likely to be debated, will probably last a considerable time.