MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 22780, 15 October 1937, Page 1

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THURSDAY, OCTOBER' 14. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) DEAL IN OOATS. Bates, Sise, and Co. proceeded against Margery Miles and I'rederick William Miles, trading in partnership under the name of Marjory Miles, claiming £SO Os sd, alleged to bo owing for 17 coats delivered about May to the defendants. Mr I. B. Stevenson appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr L. B. Barrowdlough for the defendants. Opening the case for the plaintiff, Mr Stevenson said that the defence raised would bo that the plaintiff firm had allegedly represented that goods of a similar type would not be sold to any other person or firm but the defendants, and that while the original contract called for 25 coats, only 17 were delivered. —Reginald Gage Sise a partner in the plaintiff firm, said that his fijjm had never imported exclusively for the defendants. ffhe firm had imported thousands of coats similar to those delivered to the defendants during the past 14 years. Mr and Mrs Miles had selected 25 coats from a shipment, which was opened about May 14, and agreed to purchase them. Mrs Miles was informed that they were sample coats, and that as soon as the firm had finished with them she could have them. She was told definiteily that they would not be confined to her, but would be sold to anyone. Other clients were inspecting the coats, and on this account it was found possible to deliver only 17 on May 20, but the balance could have been delivered within a very short time if Mrs Miles had desired' it. Witness later saw Mrs Miles, who said that she would return the coats as the plaintiff company was supplying them to an opposition firm, whereupon witness told her that he would refuse to take delivery, at the same time making it clear that there was no agreement that the defendants should have the exclusive rights of tho coats. —Albert Justin Sise, also a member of the plaintiff firm, tendered corroborative evidence. —For the defence, JJr Barrowclough stated that the defendants, who conducted a frock shop, maintained that they had been promised by Mr R, Sise that the models would be exclusive to them and had arranged with him that there should be no duplication. The plaintiff firm had received samples of summer coats instead of a shipment of winter coats which was expected, and the defendants agreed to purchase 30 of these samples for display in the spring. The defendants contended that when the purchase was made they had been told that the prices were too high for the plaintiff firm to take orders on. and it was agreed that they should bo sold the samples, of which they wore to receive immediate delivery. Of tho 30 samples ordered, only 17 had boon delivered, but tho defendants refused to accept delivery, as they did not in-

dude several which had been specially ordered. It bad been found, moreover, that some of the coats had been shown to an opposition firm, whereas it had been agreed that they should be confined exclusively to the defendants. —Evidence along the lines of Mr Barrowclough’s statement was tendered by the defendants.—After counsel had addressed tho court. His Worship reserved his decision.