DISPUTED CLAIM

Grey River Argus, 12 June 1935, Page 2

DISPUTED CLAIM

OVER SUPPLY OF MEN’S WEAR.

A civil claim for .=£ll/11/6, balance due (hi goods supplied, was made by G. Moore, Men’s Outfitter, of Greymouth (Mr. M. B. James) from Jessie, Robertson (Mr. A. M. Jamieson), and Donald Robertson (Mr. W. P. McC’rthy) at the Magistrate’s Court at Grey mon th yesterday before Mr. 11. Morgan, S.M. Mr. James said that the defendants were mother and son. Both defendants ran accounts with plaintiff. Th? son was in debt to a certain extent to plaintiff and he decided not to give him any more credit. Mrs. Robertson, when the son was advised oi’ this, rang up and stated she was sending Ihe boy in and to give him goods and credit, and she would pay for it. Donald Robertson was in debt to the extent of over £l6, which he paid off in instalments leaving a balance of £ll/1.1/6 owing. He came to the shop for lurther credit but. plaintiff would not supply him and his mother again rang up and said Io give her son credit and that she would pay. When asked about, the account by plaintiff, Mrs. Robertson said she would pay her own account with plaintiff first and then Donald’s. Further goods were subsequently bought by Donald Robertson, and plaintiff had supplied them on the understanding with Mrs. Robertson that she was responsible for payment. The account dated back to .1929. The account relating to Donald Robertson was rendered monthly, to Mrs. Robertson’s address, alternatively addressed to Donald Robertson and Mrs. Robertson. Amounts were paid off Donald Robertson’s account by defendant himse f, Airs. Robertson and on occasions the girls. Evidence on these lines was given by plaintiff, who said there had been no dispute of the accounts rendered. This concluded plaintiff’s case. Mrs Robertson said s he did not give any undertaking to make payment, as alleged, and denied that plaintiff approached her regarding the debt. She had received no accounts from plaintiff, and the first intimation she had i hat any claim was being made against her was a lawyer’s letter. She (lid not know why Moore made the statements he did. Donald Robertson admitted buying some goods from plaintiff, and stated that he had paid for them all. He denied, receiving account is from plaintiff. and said that the firn'l ho know of the claim was when ho received the summons. His mother never told him to get art icles from plain! iff and charge them up to her. He believed that plaintiff had made a mistake, and t’hat some other Robertson hud bought the goods.

'Ethel Kathleen Robertson, wife o: the defendant, Donald Robertson stated that her husband had noi bought the goods claimed for, and de nied that, he bought a new ovcrcoain 1930.

The Magistrate said the question 1h had to consider was whether the good? were obtained, and guaranteed by Mrs Robertson. If he was satisfied on the evidence that Mrs Robertson did make a promise, tfhen the question of law relating to guaranteecould be argued, but on the facts, he was prepared to give his decision. H< was not. satisfied, on the evidence, it had been established that Airs Robert

son did give a guarantee to pay for 'lie goods. The evidence showed that the son at the time was in receipt of a good wage, and there was no reason why he could not have paid. A fur H’.er fact apparent was that plaintiff s-tated Donald Robertson ran up an account of £l6. and thait that account was paid by reasonable instalments in a reasonable time. If Donald Robertson did purchase the clothing, then it was apparent he was meeting his obligations in reasonable time. If further goods making up the £ll Ils Gd t\ere purchased at the time it 'was daimed they wore, Vi was a reasonible proposition that, if defendant rot the goods, he would have paid for hem also in a reasonable time; and f Mrs Robertson had guaranteed the iccount she would have seen that it

was paid. He could not accept l)he explanation of plaintiff in that he kept on sending the accounts for four years, and with only a footnote. Tie was not * satisfied the accounts had been received by Robertson or Mrs Robertson, or the same action would have been taken, and that, if owing would have been paid. He. was not •satisfied plaintiff had established that Mrs Robertson had given a guarantee, or -that the goods were purchased. It seemed to him plaintiff had con fused the books. Plaintliff had said there were only the two defendants on the hooks, but in cross-examina-tion it was found that there were five “Robertson’s.” It seemed that in entering up the books, items were entered up to the account of D. Rob-

ertson which should have been entered up to some other Robertson. He was not satisfied plaintiff had made out a ca.se against defendants, and he must be non-sui-bed. It was extra-

ordinary, he added, that plaintiff allowed accounts to run on for four years and made no attempt to finalies them, when payments formerly were regularly made. Solicitor’s fee £2 2s. Court costg 2s, and witness’ expenses 7s 6d would be allowed to the defendant Jessie Robertson, and witnesses’ expenses 15s and solicitor’s fee £2 2s would be allowed to the defendant Donald Robertson.