DISCORD OVER A MUSICAL BOX

Auckland Star, Volume XXXV, Issue 94, 20 April 1904, Page 7

DISCORD OVER A MUSICAL BOX

Mr Kettle, S.M., was engaged this! morning in settling a dispute between two citizens of Auckland over a musical-1 cox. The parties to the dispute were! Mr Mendelssohn, a pawnbroker, and Mr j Noah Cohen, a jeweller and watch re-j pairer. of Coombes' Arcade. According to Mr Mendelssohn, five ▼ears ago he bought a musical-box at a private house for £S or £9. He left 8 at his shop for two years, and occasionally produced music from it. But fi t last the main-spring broke, and he fave it to Mr Cohen to mend. The box *as then, the owner alleged, in splendid order, and Mr .Mendelssohn could see his face in the lid. Mr Cohen said he was tie only man in Auckland -who could &end the spring. He kept it for about tttree years, intending to repair it. but never getting it done. Finally Mr Mendelssohn insisted on seeing the box, and |? then found it lying on a rubbish heap *tovng a lot of pickle bottles. It was falling to pieces. The glow of youth, had departed, and Mr Mendelssohn could no . joager see his face in the lid. Many of «s teeth had been extracted. He after- *"& discovered that Mr Cohen was saving the colony, and he then sued fcim '°lMie return of the box in its original (which was impossible) or £ 10. pe defendant wished to return the box raits degenerate state, but plaintiff r erased to receive it. It was then deposited with the clerk of the court (Mr fcdfe). Several watchmakers and musical instrument dealers—Messrs J. Donellv, R. P°«fey, F. Read, and W. Munro— Jaraed the box, when new. at from £10 to £18. but most of them said they *ould not give 30/ for it now. Gour*7. formerly employed by tbe defend|s| said that before retirin? from "ttsmess the defendant advised him to P* the box in order and deliver it to "* as he would probably let h:.s custom. He replied that he could B °t possibly put it in order. ' Defendant's brother, Aaron Cohen, j TJJ'I the box had not deteriorated since g9T received it. It could be repaired i IOT 38/, and would then be worth £ 10. Worship gave judgment, with Pgs- for plaintiff for £8. defendant to gjE the box. He remarked that this °£ ! d enable defendant to repair it and ■™w « profit of ten shillings. fc£H? iotl for the P lahltiff ' observed j Ju, '" 5s V' c evidently one of those *•«» cas ' s "' which all parties were "•"ST.*,-]. r i(fcL^{ 15aTHS<>a was solicitor for the r ftelr tHt en ' 3cf the case tbe parties and •H-W 0 ' 11 ? ntl 'ered round the inOai- "°* and eniaied some musjo. -»,.