WESTPORT NOTES

Grey River Argus, 18 June 1942, Page 6

WESTPORT NOTES

(Our Own Correspondent) WESTPORT, June 17. High Tides. Port of Westport. a.m. p.m.

Mr. and Mrs. Albert Brown and son, of Dunedin, are visiting Westport as the guest of Mr. and Mrs. Percy Johnston. During their stay here they are making inquiries concerning their late son, Albert John (“Joe”) Brown who was working at Inangahua Junction and enlisted at Wets'tport, going overseas with the New Zealand troops at the age of 18 years. He met his death while diving into shallow water. Mr. and Mrs Brown hope to contact some of their son's frfends before they leave on return to Dunedin on Monday. Mr. C. F. Storey, railway wharf foreman has returned to duty after a month’s sick leave in the North Island. Messrs Dan and Jim Dennehy were visitors to Westport yesterday on mining business. They were formerly well-known residents of Westport. Mr. Tom Fisher, proprietor of the I Provincial Hotel, Upper Hutt, accompanied bv his niece, Miss M. Drew, .is visiting Westport. Mr. • Fisher will be remembered as a Buller Rugby Represntative, and also represented the South Island, and was ia member of an All Black team that toured Australia. The judgment of Mr. G. G. Chisholm, S.M., in the case Stenhouse v. Owles, heard on May 6, 1942, was read by the Clerk of the Court (Mr. j Bladder) at the Westport Courthouse yesterday. Mr. W.ilson appeared for informant and Mr. Scully for defendant. Defendant was charged on two informations with breaches of Clause 5 of the Price Stabilisation Emergency Regulations, 1939, in that on the 29th November 1941, and again on 26th January, 1942, he sold a Kodak roll film for the sum of 3/1, a sum in excess of that authorised to be charged by the regulation. The permissible sale price on each occasion was 2/1. The facts in respect of the two sales were similar. On the first occasion the purchaser was asked for 3/1 and when she question-' ed the price she was told that 1/would be refunded when the film was brought in for development. The purchaser asked for and obtained a receipt which read: “To lv film 3/1, 1/- to be refunded when film is brought in for development. Received payment, • 29/11/41, .per D. Ambrose, Central Pharmacy. The second sale was to a different purchaser and by a different assistant. The purchaser was told that the sale price w'as 2/1, but 3/1 was being received and l/_ would be refunded when he brought the film back for development. His evidence then proceeds: “I said, suppose I don t want to have it developed?” She said: Inj sorry, it makes no difference. 1 took it.” This purchaser also secured a receipt reading: “To film 3/1, received payment 26/1/42, per J. M. Campbel], Central Pharmacy.” On this receipt, there was no reference to the refund of 1/-. This witness stated that he bought the film to return to a friend from whom he had borrowed one. but he did not inform the vendor of that fact. In neither | case had the film been returned for development, nor was a refund of 1/- I applied for. It was submitted by Mr. Scully that the purpose of the I vendor in these transactions was to secure to himself the work of development. and printing of the films sold bv him, and that the request for l/_ deposit to that end did not amount to an increase in the sale price. It was clear that both purchasers were aware, before they paid the sum of 3/1 that the permissible price of the film was 2/1 and that the extra 1/- wlas a deposit refundable upon complying with the vendor’s condition. Knowing this condition, they each paid the amount asked for. The finding read: “I take the view that each of the sales under review was .actually a sale at 2/1 completed, because the purchaser accepted the condition upon which the vendor was prepared to sell. it was a condition precedent imposed bv the vendor and accepted by tne purchaser, and the extra 1/- paid was not part of the purchase price, but a sum refundable unon a certain condition being fulfilled. For this reason, I am of the opinion that a breach of the regulation has not been proved and both informations are dismissed.” Mr. T. Mathewson presided at tne Ratepayers’ Association monthly meeting, which was moderately attended. Buller Hospital Board advised that the training of a female in X-ray work was at present under the Board's consideration. The question of repainting pedestrian street ,

crossings was raised and it was stated that the Council proposed to hold the matter over until Christmas time. Cr. Howard stated that he was not. aware that the matter was being held over. He said the question of manpower governed these matters and no doubt the work would be attended to as soon as possible. The Town Clerk replied to the Association’s representations re, public convenience in Brougham Street that the matter was referred to the inspector for attention, although his monthly report mentioned that it was disinfected six days of the week. A resolution to conduct all business in open council had been lost when a vote was taken by the Council. Cr. Howard contended it would be impossible to get I through all the business of the Coun'cil if not first discussed and dealt I with by all the committees. Com'mittees reported to the Council, their I reports being read and dealt with in open council and handed to the press for publication. Mr. Sutherland brought up the question of the recent black-out and asked why the lighting could not have been brought into operation earlier. He wanted to know why the gas engines could not have been ready earlier instead of having to wait to raise steam on other boilers at Denniston. Mr Howard said it took one and a half hours to bring a full head of water from the lake to the Fairdown station. It was impossible to bring the gas engines into operation immediately there was a power failure. The expense of doing so would be prohibitive. He was of opinion that if the Council had installed their own plant, the current would have been more costly than purchasing it from the Westport Coal Co., and was sure that eventually current would be obtained from Lake Coleridge land that probably the Westport Coal Company would also .purchase their current at a cheaper 'rate than they could produce it themselves. He was sure Westport Coal Company would be quite willing to scrap the' agreement if cheaper current could be obtained in the meantime. A vote of thanks was I passed to Mr. Howard for his ex- ’ planations. It was resolved to request the Borough Council to attend to the footpath in Rintoul Street, especially in the vicinity of the St. James Theatre.

Thursday, June 18, 00.33 00.50 Friday, June 19 01.12 01.31 Saturday, June 20 01.52 02.16 Sunday, June' 21 02.38 03.07