SUPREME COURT

Press, Volume LXXXV, Issue 25796, 6 May 1949, Page 3

SUPREME COURT

CLAIM FOR RETURN OF CHATTELS A claim by Robert John Leslie Cole, a contractor, against Mason Hay Jenkin, a manager, for possession of chattels at . 263 Moorhouse avenue, or for £B5O as their value, was partly heard before Mr Justice Northcroft and a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday. Cole further claimed £lOO as damages for the alleged wrongful detention of the chattels by Jenkin, and also the costs of the action. Mr D. J. Hewitt appeared for Cole and Mr J. K. Moloney and Mr K. A. Gough for the defendant, Jenkin.

The statement of claim said that the plaintiff engaged the defendant on October 22, 1948, as manager of a boardinghouse at 263 Moorhouse avenue, rented by the plaintiff as tenant of Carbonic Ice, Limited; that the defendant failed to carry out the terms of his engagement, and was dismissed on December 23, 1948; that the defendant did not accept this notice and, without the authority of the plaintiff, negotiated with Carbonic Ice, Limited and became the tenant of the boarding-house; and that the defendant wrongfully failed to return the chattels in the boardinghouse to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, in evidence, said he was described in the documents as a contractor, but actually he was a boarding-house keeper at 58 Manchester street. In September, 1945, he acquired an interest in the lease of a boarding-house at 263 Moorhouse avenue. He paid £lOOO for this business, being £B5O for the chattels and £l5O for the goodwill of the lease. When this lease was due to expire he gave notice that he wanted to renew it, but he was not successful in doing so. The rent of the Moorhouse avenue premises was -paid up to November, 1949. On October 20, 1948, he advertised for a manager for the Moorhouse avenue boarding house and a man. Mason Jenkin, applied for the job. Witness interviewed him at 58 Manchester street on October 22, 1948, and Jenkin was engaged as manager. There was an agreement, written by Jenkin, that Jenkin was to be paid £6 a week, clear of tax, with free lodgings, and Jenkin was to account to witness each Saturday for the receipts and expenditure from 263 Moorhouse avenue. M’his arrangement was observed for two or three weeks, and Jenkin called for his wages and handed, ovei the money from the boarding-house, but no statement of receipts and expenditure. Jenkin said he would bring a full statement at the end of the month, but the end of the month never came. A Mrs McStay, housekeeper for Jenkin, then took the money to witness and collected Jenkin’s wages. This went on until December 10, 1948, and he heard nothing further from either Mrs McStay or Jenkin. As a result of the unsatisfactory state of things, vdtness terminated Jenkin’s engagement on December 23, 1948.

“On January 9, 1949, I telephoned Jenkin and he told me he was the proprietor of the place and had the lease in his name. He offered to buy the furniture and, when I said I would not sell, he said lie would put it out. Jenkin said he had got the lease since he received my—letter dismissing him. On January 10 I went to see Jenkin and told him to get out, but he just laughed. I asked a policeman about getting possession. He went in and, when he came out, he said I had better keep away from the premises until the lawyers' offices opened, is Jenkin had satisfactory documents. On March 14 I demanded my belongings, but Jenkin did nothing: at all,” said Gole. To Mr Gough the witness denied that he agreed to sell the business to Jenkin and that Jenkin paid bin? any money as part of the purchase price. A document siiown to him. pumbrting to be a receipt for £6O and £2OO, was signed by him. but. he considered the figures were £6 and £2O. He thought the figures must have been altered. He had never given the deiendant a receipt for sums of £6O and £2OO.

Jeanette Lillian Liddicoat, a housemaid waitress, Reginald Michael Dally, and Owen Rankin Lavender, a salesman, gave supporting evidence. That concluded the case for the plaintiff. The Defence

Mason Hay Jenkin, the defendant, said he was a boarding-house proprietor and lived at 263 Moornouse avenue. He got in touch with Cole about October 18, 1948, by answering an advertisement advertising a bed and tray establishment for sale. Cole showed him over the premises at 263 Moorhouse avenue and a price of £lO5O was mentioned. Cole told him there was a profit of £6O to £7O a week in the business, and -witness took it on trial for three weeks. Before the third week was out he told Cole there definitely was no( that profit in it. Later Cole accepted his offer of £5OO for the business. Cole told witness ,he (Cole) owned the building, but witness learned that it was owned by Carbonic Ice, Limited. He paid Cole the £5OO in sums of £260 and £240. The document produced was an interim receipt for the £260 but he did not get a proper receipt, though Cole promised him one. When he paid the second amount. £240, Cole gave him a proper receipt for £5OO, and witness put it in a tin cash box. Some time after this the witness was very ill. and during changes in occupancy of oart of the premises, the cash box, containing the receipt, disappeared. He had be~n paying Cole £7 a week rent. He had not. at any time, received one penny from Cole. Witness- paid for repairs to - the premises. When a constable called at Cole’s request tc see witness, he told the constable he had a lease from Carbonic Ice. Limited. Later he was served with a writ and an inventory of the chattels at 263 Moorhouse avenue. This inventory was a totally different one from the one he and Cole tbok when witness took over the boarding-house. He did not write the agreement, produced, which stated he was as manager. The defendant was being cross-exam-ined by Mr Hewitt when the Court adjourned until to-day.