JEWELLERY SALES.

Hawera Star, Volume XLIX, 12 April 1929, Page 6

JEWELLERY SALES.

DISPUTE OVER TERMS. FULL DAY AT COURT. The tearing of the evidence on .the claim preferred by E, Morris, Ltd., of Hawera, against Mrs Ida Kate Douglas and the latter’s counter-claim, occupied the Hawera Court for a full day yesterday, and further witnesses remained to be called l when the Court rose art 5.50 p.m. The ease was then adjourned until the next fortnightly sitting of the Court. Following the evidence already reported, Jack Christie Spavin, who. claimed 33 years experience in the i. v.v and watchmaking trade, said that when the war was on he had. sold exactly the same watch as that shown in Court at £2O. A fair selling iprioe of the onyx ring would be £l2 to £ls. "Witness had been told the diamond cluster ring had been purchased wholesale about seven years ago. A fair retail price then would be £l3O. The brooch was worth about 30s. CALLED WITH EGGS. She had known Airs Douglas for 2u to year's, said iVU's tlosuck in evidence. Anouk three years ago sue jiau sold a ring to Mrs Douglas' lor jL'hu. borne trouble had occurred over in a payment, which, was eventually made by Mr Douglas alter about _ a year. Shortly alter Mr Douglas stopped the credit ol ins wife. Witness was not an intimate friend of ALrs Douglas, and. did not visit the latter’s home, though Mrs Douglas, who hrst called with some eggs, had frequently visited the home ox witness. On a certain stormy night ALrs Douglas asked if she couid remain, as it was some distance to her own home, and she had Kiept there a number of times since,, the last occasion being on September 25. On August 22 Mrs Douglas had called at tiie shop and asxed for a brooch. Among others she had seen the brooch exhibited in Court. After being told the price was £3 3s, and shown the price so marked, she said she would take it. She also purchased a pair of earrings at 30s. It was not true tnat witness had taken a el ass of stout with Airs Douglas, nor had the latter ever taken liquor into the shop or Mrs Hostick’s home.

On August 28 Mrs Douglas came to ±.]ao isthop and an onyx dinmond ring and. was informed clearly the price was £lB. Later she came to tell witness of a watch in the possession of a friend and said she would like a good one also. She selected one. priced £2O. She was clearly informed of that, and also that 30s was added as the cost of a special wrisitband attached at her request. LIKING FOR BLUE. Describing the purchase of the fourpiece toilet set, witness said Mrs Douglas had admired it particularly as the colour was blue and had remarked “The Swissy likes blue.’’ The price was £8 10s.

“What’s the price, £150? Oh yes, I can afford that. I’ve only to go to the Public Trust Office and get what 1 want,” were, said witness, the final words of Mrs Douglas in buying the diamond cluster ring on September 7. Mrs Douglas put the ring oil her finger and exclaimed that all the world would he jealous of Kitty Douglas and her lire tty things. Later she said that the “Swissy tv anted to marry her and would buy hear the ring, but when witness asked for an understanding, Mrs Douglas said the ring was to be put down to her account. Airs Douglas had that day paid £lO off the previous account, but later in the day bad returned to the shop to borrow £2. Witness detailed the sales of other articles mentioned in the account and contended that in all cases the prices charged had been made clear to Mrs Douglas at the time of the purchase. "When Mrs Douglas had expressed dissatisfaction witli one of tne tumblers purchased at 32s 6d because it was marked with a scratch, witness had given her another, even though the first on© had been unmarked when it left the shop. Mrs Douglas informed witness that she was going to draw a few hundred pounds from the Public Trustee to settle various accounts and promised to pay the full amount owing on September 15. On the I3tli, however, s he paid £2. Witness could then see she did not intend to pay the remainder of the account, so witness offered to make terms, by which Mrs Douglas was to pay £SO monthly until the account was liquidated. Mr s Douglas had appeared quite agreeable, and on the fifteenth when she came in to borrow 10s 6d she had repeated that the monthly payments would be made. Invoices, accounts and letters had been sent to Mrs Douglas, but up to October 5 she had paid only £5 off the account. TELEPHONE TALKS.

Though witness gave no provocation, Mrs Douglas had been grossly abusive during a ’phone conversation concerning the account and had threatened to do or say anything ske could to harm witnesse’s business as she considered she had been deirauded. On another occasion a man speaking with a foreign accent, w:horu witness believed was a friend of Mr s Douglas, had ’phoned witness and also been grossly insulting in his remarks. When Mrs Douglas w T as making the purchases witness had not used the term “the goods are of good value and there is nothing to touch them for value in New Zealand”, or words to that effect. Witness had not given a quotation for the wooden barrel which was sold for £2 10s because, when Mrs Douglas asked for it, witness had not seen the goods list and was unaware of the cost of the barrel. Witness had frequently asked Mrs Douglas to* sign for the goods received, but the lattei had refused consistently to do so, and constantly remarked she was a woman of determination. M r North : Aren’t you the lady who, called on a certain solicitor an this, town, asked to see a certain document| which you had signed, then rolled it up, in a ball and swallowed it. . i Witness: Yes, but that has nothing to do with the present case. Mr North: Perhaps not, but it wilt] serve to show the court that on occas- ■ ions you can be a woman of determm- | at The teapot exhibit was a high grade article, and though it was Dou tori ivare, the electro plate lid was the original one supplied by the makers said wfo ness It was well worth £d ana sne was perfectly prepared to have her| evidence judged _on the truth of hei remarks concerning it. She denied that after being directed as a witness to leave the court earlier , in the proceedings she had listened m the doorway. . . , , .- n The cross-examination had been in progress for 45 minutes and wa lS uncompleted when the court rose.