A FORAGE CLAIM.

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume XL, Issue 5805, 10 May 1912, Page 4

A FORAGE CLAIM.

At the Magistrate's Court vp«** , '■ before Mr Dyer.. Mountf^S* sued E. B. Lockett for £2 12aiii C|>torage supplied. v for Mr Phillips appeared for «v- " and Mr Tudhope for defendant nUffB. Grundy, storeman in the p., . of plaintiffs, stated that Mr t Faulkner ordered, for Mr Loeki.iV D * sacks of chaff and one sack «?' U>n A store order produced was JL**** in witness' presence and initial?V Ut him. Lockett had given autW^' forward goods through Faulkn ° his agent. The goods wereW^ a» to the boat through a cam<V ,* Faulkner. The goods novjr back. Horsefeed had been p rev i?!* sent to Lockett in the same way ** Cross-examined by x \] r T jv," . Faulkner gave the order at tho!? Pc: Once before to witness' knoifi? chaff had been sent to I ocwi Faulkner's order. Horsefeed },»! ,°° been sent to Mokohiti at the M Lockett came into the stor» jj°?^ and said he had not received the &** Witness went and interviewed?' Faulkner, and her books shewed £ the chart and oats were shipped J D Faulkner was called and twti hed that he was proprietor of a lan \ running between the town and th Mount. In June remembered order from plaintiffs good, f or defend Jf Lockett asked witness to procure t goods. On June 23rd witness receive ten sacks of chaff and one sack of o<u from the plaintiffs, and took sainol to the Mount, where a dray cain«! h and took delivery of the goods fromT dinghy. Ihe dray was driven by a Maori. Had taken over other Joi for Lockett, and delivered them iVtli same way.

Cross-examined by Mr TudhoueRemembered giving Lockett a receint (produced) for boat chargesartouiitiiw to 189 9d. Witness might have knock* ed off the charge of 6s 6d for ten bags of chaff and one bag of oats but he could not remember. '

To the Magistrate: Was certain he took down the goods in question.

Mrs J. D. Faulkner stated that she made freight entries for her husband The book was produced and on June 23rd showed an entry of ten sacks of chaff and one sack of oats for defendant.

Cross-examined by Mr Tudhope: The book wai filled in every night, on u lc particulars given by her husband and her son.

This closed the plaintiffs'case

E. B. Lockett, the defendant, said he got a bill from Mountfort and Baker for £16 6a 3d, and disputed it. Told them when they rectified their account he would pay them; Some time after was in their store. They asked him to pay, and they looked up the books and said he owed them £13 13s 4d, which he pafd. Had a dispute with Faulkner about freight, and latter knocked 6s Ud off, but it was not struck off the account. Faulkner stated to witness that he had not brought down the chaff in dispute. Had instructed Faufkner to gel; chaff on occasions at Mountfort and Baker's, but did not instruct him to get chaff on the occasion alleged. The goods, never came down, because he took delivery of all good 3 landed at the Mount. Faulkner had previously taken down forage for Maoris.

Cross-examined by Mr Phillips: In June, 1911, purchased horsefced from Mountfort and Baker. A month's hoi'Hefeed cost him between £4 and £5. Also bought chaff from the Maoris. Faulkner admitted that he had not taken the goods over. Had-'authorised Faulkner to get horsefeed for witness when he (witness) required it.

Considerable cross-examination took place re purchases by defendant from Mountfort and Baker. Witness stated that between June ' 7th and July 14th he purchased chaff from the Loan and Mercantile Company as well a* Mountfort and Bakpr. The chaff from the Loan and Mercantile Co. did not go to. the Mount, but was fed to his stallion in Touranga.

To the Bench: Witness . befjan to deal with Mountfort and" Baker in March. Three horses were fed till about the middle of April, and after that time two horses. Thought a horse would eat on an average about ten bag?, of chaff and one and a-half bags of oats per month. Knocked off dealing with Mountfort and Baker about July 29th.

Mr Phillips contended it was a question of agency,' and Lockett having authorised Faulkner to act as agent rendered Lockett liable.

The Magistrate reviewed the evidence and said it was clear that.the goods were ordered by Faulkner and delivered to him, What happened after that wa<* a question between Lock- • ett and the proprietor of. the launch, and if Lockett had any remedy it was against Faulkner.

Judgment was given for plaintiffs for amount claimed and costs £'6 Bs.