BY WHOSE ORDER?

Auckland Star, Volume LIV, Issue 286, 30 November 1923, Page 8

BY WHOSE ORDER?

A dispute as to whom certain materials -were to be charged was the subject of a case decided yesterday afternoon at the Magistrate's Court by Mr. W. R. MeKoan, S.M. The plaintiff, Alfred Woolnough (Mr. Thwaites) claimed from W. Monks (Mr. Ready) and W. E. Kilroy, who did net appear and was not represented, the sum of £75, alleged to be due for some steel windows supplied for defendant Monk's factory. The claim against the defendants was jointly and separately. The defence entered by Monk was that he did not order the windows, also that the sum of £300 had been paid to Kilroy. Mr. McKean said that the evidence submitted was not sufficient to establish joint and several liability. The order was not sisfned by Kilroy per Monks. The evidence showed that Monks called on the pl-aintiff to £ret quotations, but did not himself give an order. Plaintiff accepted the order given by Kilroy, care of Monks. That however did not suggest it nis intended to make Monks liable. Mr. McKean said he was not able on the evidence to give judgment against Monks, but was prepared to give it against Kilroy. • Mr. Thwaites elected to take judgment against Kilroy. Plaintiff was then nonsuited as against Monks, and judgment was given in plaintiff's favour against 7<ilroy by default for the amount claimed, with costs.