A DISPUTED DEBT.

Greymouth Evening Star, 19 July 1918, Page 3

A DISPUTED DEBT.

LYNCH v. JEFFERIES. A HOKITIKA CASE. At the Magistrate’s Court, yesterday, a case of considerable interest was heard before Mr THutchison, S.M., in which J. 1). Lynch claimed £-33 Os 8d from W. Jefferies. Mr J. A. Murdoch appeared for plaintiff and Mr 0- T. J. Alpers for defendant.

J. D. Lynch deposed he was plaintiff, trading as Mark Sprot and Co. The book produced showed the commission accounts of the firm while in business in Hokitika in 1913-14. The defendant was manager at Hokitika till that date. Produced letter-book No. 5, containing copy of a letter written by Mr Jeffries, while manager for plaintiff, to the directors of No. 2 Westland Building Society, dated 29th May, 1912, signed by Mr Jeffries as manager. Mr E. H. Robinson was a former manager, predecessor of Mr Jef-„ fries. Prior to Mr Robinson, Mr Eisfelder was manager and also secretary of the society. From the inception of the Building Society witness’s firm was secretary of the society, it had been nominally held by Mr Eisfelder, and Mr Robinson, and prior to 1914 by Mr Jeffries- During the time till 1913 plaintiff’s firm received the salary as secret ary of the Building Society. From Ist January, 1914, the salary had not been paid into the firm’s account, and that was what he was now suing for. Mr Jeffries was manager in Hokitika in full charge, his salary being in full discharge of all work done. The work of the Building Society during this time was done by the office staff, the registered office being the office of Mark Sprot and Co. In June, 1914, the sale of the Hokitika business was effected to Mr Jeffries, The salary of the Building Society was due at the end of July eleven mouths being owing when the sale took place. The Secretary’s salary included office rent, gas, etc. Made a demand on Mr Jeffries for payment of the salary on 7th August, 1917. Witness received a reply stgting that all moneys earned as manager had been paid to witness’s account. This money had not been paid to witness. Understood Mr Jeffries received £37 IDs salary. Witness should have received eleventwelfths of this amount. Actually the amount claimed was for £33 Gs Bd, due to a miscalculation. To Mr Alpers—The balancesheet of No. 2 Society shows a salary down at £3O, He admitted, after looking at the books, that the £3O was correct. When he sold the business he left the books with Mr Jeffries. On 11th October, 1917, he wrote authorising Mr Jeffries to hand over the firm’s books to Mr Borton, and he got most of the books- Mr Borton did not get all the books, because htr did not get the book that was handed in that morning, others were also missing. In the commission book on 19th March, 1914, there is credited £ls, being half year had been paid, reducing 1914. Tins entry was news to him, but he wished to mention that he had not seen this book since he had sold out in 1914. He admitted the entries showed onehalf year had been paid, reudcmg the claim to li-12tbs of £ls. He had made no application for payment till October, 1917. He had not done so till he was informed that the amount had not been paid. Witness was informed by Mr Borton that Mr Jeffries had received £3O odd from the Building Society, that should have gone to Mark Sprot and Co.’s account, Witness had the greatest confidence in Mr Jeffries while he was his manager. Mr Alpers proceeded to refer to an incident that had occurred in witness's office in Greymouth. Witness outlined his view of the occurrence. He denied that Mr Jeffries at that time asked for witness to show the books and lie

S'" would prove witness was in the I wrong. H Witness continued to ho ex- || arained as to the procedure of the m sale of the Hokitika business.

His Worship asked Mr Alpers what was the reason of going l into the business transactions. Mr Alpers outlined the attitude

he took up, and his Worsliip allowed the examination to continue. Witness to Mr Alpers continued—There were no other salaries payable in that commission book.

Mr Alpers.—He asked witness if lie did not throw in further concessions at the time of the sale, for an increase in the cash payment.

Witness.—He totally denied any alteration to what was in the deed.

His Worship—After the written document was signed Mr Jeffries made a payment of £IOOO cash instead of £SOO in return for the dropping of the claim for salaries and other commissions. Witness totallv denied this.

Cross-examination continued.— Witness reiterated that no con-

cessions were included. If there were any other adjustments not made they are still owing. He denied throwing into the transactions any adjustments then owing, and that Miss Halliday was present when such a statement was made by him. x\ll the terms of the business were put in writing. Witness took Mr Jeffries’s statement of the business as correct when arranging tiie sale of tlie business. During tlie lliree years after tlie sale it did not occur to witness, to ask Mr Jeffnes about the Building Society. To Mr Murdoch. —The list of adjustments were supplied by Jar Jeffries at the time of the sale. jLLe uui nut uoii ior a cuimessmu Uj x.o.r jenries paying *xuuo instead oi *UuU. iic accepted tne ngures supplied by Air Jeffries at tne time uosolutejy. lie denied absolutely that me agreement suggested by iVir Alpers nad been made. lo his Worship.—Mr Jeffries apparently on the statements snown to-day owes witness on more accounts than the Building Society. Oswald R. E. Borton deposed he was clerk for several years in the employ of Mark Sprot and Found subsequently for about three years in the employ of Mr Jeffries. Different members of the staff did the work of the Building Society, including witness. Remembered salary of Building Society being paid. Mr Jeffries signed it as Secretary and then handed it to witness to credit in cash book. Witness pointed out that over £3O of that belonged to Mark Sprot and Co. Mr Jeffries said to credit it to his commission account, which witness did. Witness’s entrv would be in Mr Jeffrey's ca«h book.

The eash book was produced m»d witness looking through H failed to find the entrv for the pavm.eut be had to. ,\t this sta ° e +b o Ponrt s»d-inn-iinil -Pot lfivir.li Jio •(-i ""il-r n on*-!■.-"h for his pufrv dnr : "o> J b r. + ' TT .\, Worship took bis seat at o 1 % ~ enco. —He had been through the cash book and could not find the entrv. IHs Worship.—lf was a remarkable thing that, when witness was positive, the entry could not be found. Witness. —He could not account for not finding it. He did not suggest the books had been altered.

His Worship.—Finding no evidence in the cash book and none in the bank book, what did witness expect him to think? Witness said he could only think that ho had mixed the cheques up in Nos. 1 and 2 Societies.

After looking through No. 1 bank book witness said he could

not find any trace of the cheque. To Mr Alpers—He left Mr Jeffries’s employ in June, 1917, and it was after this that he took exception to the payment, which took place some time after June, 1914.

Mr Alpers.—When did your conscience become active? Was it on June 2nd, 1917, after you were dismissed ? Witness said he was not dismissed ; he resigned of his own accord.

Some personal questions between counsel and witness followed, and then Mr Murdoch replied by personal questions affecting- the plaintiff. To Mr Murdoch.—He was never short in his cash, nor was he ever charged with a shortage. This closed the case for plaintiff.

After hearing the case for defendant, judgment was given for plaintiff for £l2 10s and costs £3 3s. ‘ ’