POSSESSION OF CHATTELS

Press, Volume LXXXV, Issue 25797, 7 May 1949, Page 4

POSSESSION OF CHATTELS

JURY GIVES VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF JUDGE’S COMMENT ON EVIDENCE The jury in the Supreme Court yesterday gave its Verdict for the plaintiff in the case in which Robert John Leslie Cole, a contractor, claimed possession of Chattels at 263 MdornoUse avCnUe froth Mason Hay Jenkin, a mahager, or £B5O as their value. Cole further ciainied £lOO as damages for the alleged wrongful detrition of the chattels by Jeftkin, and the costs of the action. The jury assessed the value of the chattels at £3OO, but awarded the plaintiff no damages. The case, which began on Thursday, was heard before Mr Justice Northcroft. Mr D. J. Hewitt appeared for the plaintiff, Cole, and Mr J. K. Moloney and Mr K. A. Gough for the defendant, Jenkin. The defendant completed His evidence on Thursday and was cross-examined by Mr Hewitt when the hearing was resumed yesterday. Supporting evidence was given for the defence by Nellie Gwendolin McStay, manageress at 263 Moorhouse avenue; John Rennie, a sanitary inspector, employed by the Christchurch City Council; Michael Joseph Sheehan, a lorrydriver; and Tesla Leonie Uren, managing director of Carbonic Ice, Ltd. When the case for the defence concluded Mr Hewitt said there was the matter of the handwriting on the document whereby Jenkin was appointed manager. It was either in the handwriting of Jenkin, as Cole said, or it was not written by Jenkin. He had seen a hand* writing expert, but it would take sortie time to give an opinion. His Honour said that, if counsel Wert not ready to call the evidence, he could not hold up the case now it was in the hands of the jury. He cpuld well believe an investigation was necessary, for somebody ought to be prosecuted for forgery or perjury. , Counsel for each party then addressed the jury. His Honour Sums Up

“This is a troublesome case for many reasons. It is a difficult case to determine on its facts owing to the confusing and highly conflicting evidence. It is difficult to reconcile, or attempt to reconcile, the conflicting stories without being driven to the inevitable conclusion that one side or the other, or perhaps both, have not been candid and have not hesitated to stoop to perjury or worse,” said his Honour, summing up. . Cole said he delivered the furniture to Jenkin as manager of the boarding-house and Jenkin said he purchased the furniture. If Cole did sell the furniture to Jenkin aS Jenkin said he did, then Cole came before the Court perjuring himself to receive payrtient for that for which he had already been paid. If Jenkin received the furniture merely as manager, then he came before the Court perjuring himself to obtain the furniture for nothing. Jenkin was put in the boarding-house at 263 Moorhouse avenue in some capacity, either as manager, as Cole said, or as purchaser, as Jenkin said, and thereafter the Court was confronted with a series of perjuries or forgeries, making it exceedingly difficult to say what happened, continued his Honour. He then referred to the document purporting to be the agreement appointing Jenkin as manager. The jury would have some painful and difficult decisions to make and they would have to decide whether this document was a forgery, as Jenkin said it was, or if it was, as Cole said, a somewhat crude legal document. Jenkin’s story was that he did not go. In as manager but as a prospective purchaser and that it was agreed that he have three weeks’ trial. At the end of thet time, Jenkin said, he bought the chattels for £5OO. These had been passed by the Land Sales Court at £B5O when Cole bought them and here, according to Jenkin, they were being sold for £5OO. Was it reasonable to expect that a sale would nave gone through at £3OO within a few months of It having been bought by Cole at a substantially higher figure? His Honour then referred to a document, claimed by Jenkin to be a receipt for £260, and to the evidence by Cole of signing a receipt for £0 and £2O. He was still hopelessly confused as to what reliance could be placed on cither story about that particular document. The jury had two conflicting stories before them and they would have to do the best they could. The furniture either belonged to Cole, as he said it did—ln which case he was entitled to the verdict—or it belenged to Jenkin, he having bought it for £5OO. as he said, in which case he was entitled to the verdict.

The jury retired at 3.30 p.m. and returned at 5 p.m. with a verdict for the plaintiff. Cole. The jury placed a value of £BOO on the chattels, but awarded the plaintiff no damages. When Mr Hewitt moved for, judgment, his Honour indicated that plaintiff would be entitled to costs as cn a claim for £BOO. An arrangement might be made for the return of the furniture to the plaintiff. The matter would be adjourned for further application, he said.