DISPUTED ACCOUNT

Greymouth Evening Star, 14 August 1928, Page 2

DISPUTED ACCOUNT

STOREKEEPER v. CUSTOMER

Some rather extraordinary statements were made in a civil case at the Greymouth Court to-day, heard by Mr W. Meldrum, S.M. The plaintiff was Aloysius Johnston, general storekeeper, Greymouth (represented by Mr G. A. Revell) and the defendant was a young married man, William Sparks, who was not represented by counsel. The plaintiff claimed £3 3/- for goods she had allegedly supplied to defendant. Plaintiff stated that she sold the goods personally, between May 22 and July 21 to defendant or his wife, while some of the goods' were delivered to their child, about live years of age, who was sometimes sent to the shop with a note. Plaintiff produced her book, containing a list of the goods supplied. Sparks himself usually got tobacco, while his wife got groceries. A copy of the list of goods was submitted to Mrs Sparks, with the account. Mrs Sparks stated, however, that her husband had decided to pay .Mi- Poschich, plaintiff’s former partner. She told Airs Sparks that Poschich had nothing to do with the business, that she (Miss Johnston) was running it, and that the goods had been bought from her. Plaintiff also saw Sparks and asked him about the account. Sparks said Poschich had told him that the business belonged to him (Poschich), and that the money was to be paid to him. She therefore informed Sparks that she would sue him for the mvney.

Defendant said he pleaded “not guilty,” as he did not get the goods as alleged. He declared that he ceased dealing with plaintiff on May 18, and had been paying cash for goods at another store since. He denied receiving an account from Miss Johnston.

“This account practically ends on July 1,” said the S.M. “Where have you been working?” Defendant said that he was employed by a Greymouth contractor, and admitted that he was away from home ini the daytime.

The S.M. : Your wife buys most of the groceries?—Pretty well. Is vour wife in Court? —No.

How do you know she did not buy these goods? —I know who we are dealing off. But Miss Johnston surely knows who she is dealing with, and she produces her book. Defendant declared that one of the reasons he ceased dealing with plaintiff was that she never had the goods he required. She had very little stock in her shop. After he received the summons at the end of July, he said, he went around, but found the shop closed up.

The S.M.: She is only charging you up to July 1. Defendant:- Why could she not give me notice to close my account? “She says she saw your wife,” pointed out the S.M. “She did not!” declared defendant.

The S.M.: How do you know that?— My wife gave me heF word, and told me the truth!

Mr Revell: Did not Miss Johnston see you on the Sunday before the summons was issued? —The last time I saw her was in May. I will swear she did not see me on the Sunday. How long had you been dealing with her? —A fairly long time. It was owing to a little “coincident” of issuingreceipts without a stamp that I stopped dealing with her. Did you tell your wife to stop dealing with her? —Yes, at once. • Defendant stated that, had the storekeeper with whom he was now dealing not been away from Greymouth, he would have secured a written statement from him. He luad been waiting a week for the storekeeper to return.

Mr Revell: It is quite possible that you also got goods from Miss Johnston?—No.

Defendant alleged that Miss Johnston had dated her accounts a month ahead, and had accused him of getting something he never got! “My word is as good as Miss Johnston’s,” he added. “When a woman starts issuing receipts .without stamps, it is time to stop dealing with her!” Mr Revell: Was it not at Miss Johnston’s request that Mrs Sparks brought a receipt back to be stamped? —No. I took it back myself. I have got. the unstamped receipt at home. It is not in Court? —No.

Defendant put in a stamped receipt for £2/7/-, dated .May 18, but he alleged that the date had been altered. “It is a funny thing,” he said, “that two days after I was supposed to get these goods, the shop was closed and it was cleared out. There was no stock in it.”

qdie S.M.: You will have to bring your wife’s evidence before I can accept your defence. Miss Johnston’s evidence is very clear, and she has also produced her book, containing accounts against you and other people. To hold that your account is incorrect would mean that I must hold all her accounts are incorrect. You may have an adjournment, if you wish to bring further evidence. Mr Revell said in. that case he would apply for the costs of the adjournment. Defendant was informed that an adjournment would cost him £l/3/(solicitor £l/1/- and Court 2/-), and he then said that would put him. to much inconvenience.

The S.M.: Well, if you have no further evidence, I must give judgment against you. Judgment was entered for plaintiff for £3/3/-, with Court costs 10/- and solicitor’s fee £l/1/-.

Plaintiff and defendant left the Court together, still arguing animatedly.