DISPUTE OVER AUCTION

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 18 July 1928, Page 9

DISPUTE OVER AUCTION

THE SALE OF A WARDROBE. A dispute concerning the sale of a wardrobe at auction was ventilated in tlic Hawcra Court before Sir. J- S. Barton, S.M., to-day, when Robert Patrick Morrissey, auctioneer of Hawera, sought to recover £7 10s from William Charles Neilson, photographer, as the amount of a winning bid alleged to have been made during the progress' of a sale at Messrs. Morrissey and Co.’s mart in May. Firm denial that he had made the bid, as stated by Mr. B. Malone for plaintiff and supported in evidence, was given by defendant, whose case was conducted by Mr. G. J. Bay ley. On reviewing the evidence, however, the magistrate held that the 1 case presented in support of the claim was too strong to be overcome by the evidence adduced against it, and judgment was given for the amount claimed, together with £2 19 costs and solicitor’s fee.

In evidence- plaintiff stated that on May 17 a. sale was conducted at the mart, and defendant, after visiting the premises in the morning, had returned during the sale and made bids’ for the w aid robe, finally bidding £7 10s, at which figure it was knocked down to him. Bidding had started.at £5. Defendant also made the purcabse of a carpet for £O. After the sale defend--ant had informed plaintiff that, as his wife did not like the wardrobe, be would, not , take it. Defendant replied that the only thing which could lie done in that case was for plaintiff to resell the wardrobe. He received the impression that defendant had no objection. COULD NOT REPUDIATE SALE. On June 3 Neilson mentioned having received the account and that lie did not think he was liable for the price. Plaintiff reminded, him of the rormer intimation that, while he would endeavour to resell it, the actual sale to defendant -stood. In reply to defendant’s suggestion that a buyer at auction could repudiate the purchase if he was not satisfied, plaintiff explained reasons why an auction sale could not be conducted on such lines.

Replying to cross-examination by Mr. Bay-ley, plaintiff said it would be incorrect if defendant stated the bidding had started at £3 10s and that he made only one bid of £4. Plaintiff would also deny that he admitted to defendant that a mistake had been made.

William Franc-is Morrissey, accountant, employed by plaintiff’s firm, gave evidence that he heard Neilson’s name called by the auctioneer a® the purchaser of the wardrobe at £7 10s. The invoice went to Neilson a iveek after the sale. Two items were entered, a wardrobe £7 10s and a carpet £9. Neilson said he was then paying 'for the carpet only, as he was not taking the wardrobe and had. seen Mr. Morrissey concerning it. Witness had rein arked lie supposed Mr. Morrissey was selling it for him, but no comment bad been made by Neilson. > Previous to that witness had received no intimation that Neilson was not taking the article. AN UNFORTUNATE AFFAIR.

Under cross-examination witness denied emphatically that on the. night of the sale he had been told by Neilson he was not taking the wardrobe and that lie then struck the item off the sales slip. The item was struck off the sales slip in the usual manner when goods bought were left to be resold, but in this instance it was done a. week after the sale, when defendant paid for the carpet. When defendant spoke to witness concerning plaintiff’s instruction to issue the summons witness had remarked it was an unfortunate affair, but witness made no reference to a. mistake having been made. Defendant contended in evidence that bidding for the wardrobe commenced at £3 10s. He put in a bid by nodding his head at £4, but made no further bid and took no more interest in the sale. On receiving the sale slip at the counter from the previous witness on the night of the sale he referred it immediately to plaintiff, and stated he had not- bought the wardrobe. Plaintiff had replied: “There must be some mistake.” Witness then informed Morrissey, junior, who struck the item off the slip. A week later witness paid for the carpet, giving the money to a clerk in the office. Nothing had then been said concerning tlie wardrobe. On subsequently receiving the account for the wardrobe witness had a discussion with plaintiff. The outcome was that plaintiff told Morrissey, junior, to issue a summons. When defendant- saw Morrissey, junior, again that evening the latter had said the matter was unfortuante and “there must have been some mistake.” It was “rubbish” for defendant to say that he (witness) had said his wife was not satisfied. Witness had been in the furniture trade, and considered the wardrobe was not worth £7 10s. After cro : ss-exa mi nation of defendant by Mr. Malone, judgment was given as indicated.