SAWMILLER’S CLAIM

Grey River Argus, 16 May 1935, Page 8

SAWMILLER’S CLAIM

RESERVED DECISION. The hearing was concluded at the Magistrate’s Court at Greymouth yesterday before Mr Henry Morgan, S.M., of a claim by Thomas Neil Mouatt, sawmiller, Barrytolwn (M.r A. M. Jamieson) from the Brighton Coal Mines, Ltd. (Mr A. A. Wilson) for timber supplied. For the defence, evidence was yesterday given by George Thomas, lorry driver, employed by Hunter in the ca.rtage of timber. 1 He said that under the system adopted by Mouatt. it was not possible to tlake a correct tally of the timber. The quality of the timber supplied was inferior to that supplied by Richards, and s ome of it had been rejected by Hunter. Tn reply to the Magistrate, witness said there must have been some tally to enable plaintiff to set out the various lengths of timber on the invoices.

Frederick Williams, sawyer, said he had been employed by Richards and later By Mouatt. and he cat’ the timber for the Brighton Company. The method adopted at the mill would give a fairly reliable tally, although a mistake might be made. The quality of the timber supplied by Richards and Mouatt was the same, and was as good as that procurable from other mills.

Mrs Hunter stated that she bad heard Mr Hunter tell Mouatt that the directors would not stand for any alteration in Hie price charged by Richards.

James Nicoll. an employee of the defendant Company, stated that timber secured from Bowat'er and Bryan compared favourably with that supplied by Mouatt. He did not knpw what the price and conditions were regarding the former firm. Recalled by Mr Wilson, Hunter gave further evidence as to the alleged unsatisfactory nature of the timber supplied by Mouatt. ■ Witness had placed an order for 40.000 feet of timber with Bowater and Bryan, at 9s 6d per 100 feet on the skids, and it was of good length and tip-top quality, the widths being up to sixteen inches. The contract was placed a month ago.

Lengthy addresses Iwere made by both counsel.

The Magistrate said it appeared to him that there were two matters to decide. One was as to the prices that should be charged for timber supplied, and the other question was as to quantities.i It seemed, that a dispute had arisen due to unbusinesslike methods in conducting negotiations for the supply of timber. Hunter, on behalf of the Company had a definite contract with Richards, Mouatt’g predecessor and a proper procedure had been adopted, there being an agreement as to prices. When Mouatt took over and contracted to make further supplies there was nothing in -writing as to the class of timber and prices. Mouatt said he agreed to supply ordinary 0.8. timber at 11s 6d, the same as his predecessor, but anything beyond nine inches had to be paid for by arrangement. Hunter had said there was no discussion regarding prices, but assumed the same price over all wa s to be charged as charged by Richards. On the evidence, it seemed quite clear that Mouatt fully intended that he was not going to let Hunter have all the timber at the same prices as his predecessor charged. The Company had, lie considered, accepted the limber at an agreed upon price. The letter from the Company on February 6 seemed to be an attempt tn get Mouatt at that .stage to agree ovi the prices that Richards was getting, but he did not think that wa s binding on Mouatt, as on February 16 Mouatt had written distinctly denying such an arrangement. The par ies were not of the same mind about, the price to be paid for the timber. The position, therefore, was boiled down to one in which he would have to decide what was a reasonable price to be charged for the .timber, and he would reserve his decision on that point in order to come to an equitable conclusion as to “what should be paid. The other question was to the quantities, i| being alleged that there was a total shortage of 7000 feet of all classes of timber. The question of quantities ho would have to go into and consider further. He would therefore reserve his decision.