S.M. COURT.

Bush Advocate, Volume XXI, Issue 296, 18 June 1909, Page 7

S.M. COURT.

YESTERDAY. (Before Mr S. McCarthy, S.M.) C'alder, Driiminoncf and C.:\ v. A. Bell, claim admitted. — Jud;_ ;■. -it for costs os were given. Brighouse and Pawson (]\lr !.";:y(l) v. R. G. Paterson, claim £5.--i.::.-.ni-sei for plaintiff explained -....• :■;:«•. Samuel Murray Brigh.'iiise zr.'.d he was in partnership with Pawson. and ceased carrying on business tAVO years ago. The- books of the firm were jmt in Patersoh's hands to collect monies. Plaintiff were claiming two ledgers and two bank books. 1 Knew Paterson had them eight or ! nine months ago. Defendant had day books and cart books also; had received all but ledgers and bank books. They wanted ledgers so as to collect, and asked for return of books and £5 damages. Cross-examined: These books were necessary to render the- accounts. Had not had any differences with Paterson. In July, 1907, the books were pift in. defendant's hands for the purposes of investigation. Paterson rendered a statement of accounts a few weeks ago. Had applied personally to Paterson for these books. Paterson said he could not find them. was in "the office j himself when Paterson looked forthem. Paterson had not refused to I deliver them; just said he could not find them. Re-examined: Had never received a cheque with the statement. Could not sue for the accounts without the books. Paterson collected £280. In the statement produced there was a debit balance. Edwin Pawson, corroborated the evidence of last witness; had written to Paterson demanding books; had no statement prior to sth. May, tile date he gave notice to return. .Books were returned except two ledgers and two bank books. Cross - examined : Paterson ' had never refused to hand over the books. Paterson had written defendants saying he was willing to hand over the books. Counsel for defence contended that a non-suit should be entered. His Worship said- that defendant was bailee for reward, and conseqiiently slioaild take due car© Of the books. He quoted Mr Justice Williams to. show that a statement of claim could be amended in order to do justice between the parties. Counsel for the defence, in opening the case, said that a fire occurred in the .defendant's premises while lie was away from town. There was no benefit to him to. keep the books. It. G. Paterson deposed the books were kept in Mr Dobson's office. These particular books were kept in the front room of the office; sometimes they were in witness' office; had no strong room; had two safes, but they were generally full. Had books of several oilier firms. Went to Ohakune, for the new year. On returning found a fire had occurred in both J. J. Patterson's and witness' offices. Witness' own office had been badly burnt. Dobson's office was also upside- dowii. . Searched a fortnight ago among the debris at Dobson's and found papers, etc., belonging to Brighouse and Pawson. Never made any entries in the books sued for. Just kept them to make up suing statements. Never refused to give them up. Had nothing to gain in refusing delivery of the book. , Thought th© books were in Goo.. Wright's possession ; thought that in taking them away Mr Wright had mixed the books in dispute- with those of Gordon and Co. To Mr Lloyd : The fire in the office charred the ceilings. The books were usually .kept next to Gordon's books. W. Dobson deposed the books were kept in Paterson's office, and when not in use on a shelf in his room. Saw the- books about November last. Was perfectly certain if the books were in R. G. Paterson's office or witness' they could not have been burnt. Did not think Paterson's retaining the books would benefit him in any way. All books in his (witness' possession were kept under lock and key, in a safe. To Mr Lloyd: Witness was not in charge of the hooks when Paterson was away. His Worship ordered the books to bo delivered up with Is damages; doffndnut to pay plaintiff's costs amounting to £1 65.. Hrighou.se and Pawson v. R. G. Ptiierson and Co-., claim lor £49 los, balance oJ' nimn-y due. Mr Lloyd lor plaintiff. S. M. Hrigliouse. formerly butcher,

remembered iai.structiii}i I\. G. Paterson and Co. to collect accounts; received a statement from the collectors, and also an amended statement. Defendants were to receive k> per cent, on open accounts and 10 per cent .on closed accounts. Defendants collected £280, shown in statements rendered. The defendants charged £50 for accountancy, and £32 10s for commission. Cross-examined : Remembered Pawson writing demanding explanations. Never got a proper statement from defendant. To Mr Lloyd: Collected £98 and 'handed it to Paterson ; commission on this amount was charged. E\ Pawson deposed that about 17th July, 1907, witness approached Paterson and asked him to collect their accounts. He authorised Paterson "to make a thorough investigation of the books. Knew Paterson had checked the books. Knew lie had spent some time in doing so. Paterson made a report. His Worship held that this was" irrelevant, and Pawson, in employing Paterson was not acting for the firm, such could not be charged against the firm. Pawson alone was liable ►for such. Counsel for defence said if that were so there was no use continuing.. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £49 15s, costs 30s, witnesses' expenses 15s- 3d, solicitor's fee £3 3s M.