CLAIM FOR BUILDING MATERIALS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3184, 1 April 1911, Page 2

CLAIM FOR BUILDING MATERIALS.

ACTION IN THE MAGISTRATE’S v COURT.

In. the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr. W. A. Barton, S.M., the case of Messrs-. Black Bros. OMr. Bur-, .hard) v. P. A. Johansen (Mr. I. A. (Coleman), for £SB 12s lOd, claim foi building material and timber, was heard. ~ A confession of an obligation amounting to £2O 12s was filed by the defendJn opening the case for the plaintiffs Mr. Burnard said that the amount in dispute was some £36. The evidence which would he given would show that the goods were sold and delivered in the ordinary way. He. called the following witnesses. George Smith, builder and timboi merchant, deposed that he was a member of the Gisborne Timber Merchants ancl Sawmillers’ Association. In the month of January the Association came to an agreement to raise the prices of timber, making them uniform throughout the trade. Tf a man requited a quantity of 4 by li timber, and the merchant being short, by an agreementwith the customer, supplied 4 by 2, he would be charged for the latter. In such a case the difference in one hundred feet would amount to one-fourth, and would, of course, have a corresponding increase in price.- It was a practice among timber merchants to make the carter sign for every load lie took from the yard. This was looked upon as delivery. The customer was charged with the price of carting. To-Mr- Coleman: If a man ordered a quantity of 4 by li timber and 4 by 2 y‘n a sent, the carter’s docket would make the fact clear to him. Walter Black, a member of the plaintiff firm, stated that in November last defendant came to see him with regarn to the prices of timber. Witness quoted prices to him, and entered the same in the quotation hook. He agreed to supplv the timber ordered on condition that defendant paid £SO before any of it was delivered. Defendant did not paw £SO, but a fresh arrangement was made, and plaintiff firm commenced to supplv timber. In their business it was tlie practice to tally out timber ordered, making out a docket ticket in duplicate, which the carter signed. The carter took the original and handed it to the customer. The goods supplied to Mr. Johansen during the month of December were shown on the docket book as well as on the accounts. Witness had an interview with the defendant- in January. Defendant wished to know why lie had not been supplied with the balance of his order. Witness told him that he was then £3O over the order he had arranged. Defendant then cancelled the order. About the end of the same month defendant came to him with a further order, saying that he had money due to him in a few days. The order was accepted and the timber supplied. Defendant called again about February 10th, and gave a further order, which was accepted on condition that the £3O owing and the price of timber *'•; cd tc that date, making a total of £67, was paid. Defendant was agreeable, and in the course of a few days paid the £35. He did not. however, pay for the timber supplied to date. Witness refused to give defendant further credit. Accounts were sent out- every month, and every customer got his account for the preceding month about- the 10th of every month. The first time defendant disputed the; prices was about the beginning of March. Witness then saw the defendant, and told him that they must have money. Defendant came back the next day and disputed the prices, but hot the quantity. This was the first time the prices were mentioned, .and witness ivas quite sure that the Quantity was never disputed. The Gisborne Timber Merchants and Sawmillers’ Association, of which he was a member, had come to an agreementconcerning the price of timber. This came into operation on February 1, and all customers were supplied at the same prices. Defendant was notified of the change in prices. To Mr. Coleman: When defendant had first come to witness he had supplied a list of timber 1 he required for building a- house in Kaiti. Witness quoted to him the prices shown in the quotation book. He was quite clear about this, and was sure he did not quote the prices shown on the slip made out by defendant. He considered that all the carters that had been employed by the firm were reliable. At the time when the firm was supplying timber to defendant the firm was supplying timber to other builders in the same vicinity. There was not .the slightest chance of timber being carted to tlie wrong customer.

Allan Black, a member of the plaintiff firm, stated that he overheard a conversation between his brother and defendant about the middle of January. Defendant came in and asked his brother if he intended to supply him with the balance of his order. His brother told the defendant that they would have to have some money. Defendant then said- that the other yards were not so particular, and said he could get the material elsewhere. Pie frequently saw defendant about their yard, but he never complained of non-delivery of goods ordered. Witness checked most of tlie accounts that went out.. Regarding an erasion in the quotation hook dated February 10, he stated that the mistake had been made by his brother, and witness had made the alteration. The firm did building besides dealing in timber; and witness attended to the former..

At this stage Mr. Burnard suggested that, to avoid trouble over the question of delivery, it would.be advisable to call all the carters, and as the carters were not available that day he would ask for an adjournment. His Worship granted an adjournment until 2 p.m. on Monday.