DISPUTED CHEESE SALE

Hawera Star, Volume L, 27 November 1930, Page 9

DISPUTED CHEESE SALE

CRATES FROM HURLEYVILLE

A dispute concerning) the delivery of. a small oonsignmejnt of cheese was ventilated before Mr. J. H. Salmon,;, S.M., in the Hawera. court to-day-when an unsuccessful claim for £ t 2s was preferred by the .Hurleyville Co-, operative Dairy Factory, Ltd., against Bullocks Groceries, Ltd., of Hawera. Holding that the onus of proor bad. not been discharged, the magistrate, entered a 11011-suit. Mr. R. C. Rutherford appeared for plaintiff company and Mr. St. L. Reeves for the defendant company. Leslie George Lee stated in evidence that as the result of the request of the manager of defendant company to arrange a purchase of matured cheese he arranged for a supply front the Hurleyville factory, the price to be. fixed after the delivery of the cheese at Bullock’s premises. Stephen A. Couchman, carrier, stated that he had delivered a crate an cl a-half of cheese from the Hurleyville factory to Bullock’s main siffop an Princes Street. The consignment was the onlv one he had taken theie fioin the Hurleyville factory, though he had delivered others at different times fiom Manutalii. NO' RECEIPT RECEIVED. Replying to Mr. Reeves, witness said lie did not receive a receipt for the delivery of the cheese. A man who had been working in the store at the rear of the s'hop helped witness to unload the crates and carry them in. Witness did not know linn personally He did not take particular notice ot him and probably would _not know the man if he saw him again. . Since the trouble over the present delivery arose he made it a practice to obtain receipts for goods and had received some from Bullock’s. V hen lie found out towards the latter part ot August that the delivery of the cheese was disputed he made inquiries at the premises of Johnston und. Qo., next door to Bullock’s, with a view of ascertaining whether any Hurleyville crates were in the back yard of either Johnston’s or Bullock’s premises. Mrs. Couchman, wife of the previous witness, said she remembered that on a Friday during, the winter she accompanied her husband to Hawera in the lorry. She knew that cheese from the Hurleyville factory was on the lorry and heard her husband remark it was the first he had; Taken from the Hurleyville factory to Bullock s. Witness saw her husband and a man from the store carry a crate and a-half of cheese into Bullock’s. Corroboration of this evidence was given by Raymond Amon, who said he was also a passenger on the lorry during a winter Friday.

DELIVERY DENIED. The contention for the defence was that the cheese had not been delivered, said Mr. Reeves. It was hardly likely that his clients, who carried on an extensive business, would prejudice the reputation of the firm by disputing such a small amount if the liability had actually been incurred. William H. Bachelor, managing director of Bullock’s, Ltd., gave evidence of the arrangement with Mr, Lee, as stated by the latter. The cheese, however, had not been delivered at the store, though when witness made inquiry he was informed by Mr. Lee that it was said to have been sent. Pursuing inquiries in August with the carrier Couchman witness asked him, in the presence of the shop employees, to point out the man Couchman had said had helped to carry the cheese into the store. Couchman could not do so and witness could not find anyone on the staff who could recognise Couchman or recollect the action referred to', by Couchman. It was a rule of the business that receipts were given for goods received. Had the cheese been delivered a receipt would have been issued. INQUIRIES NEXT DOOR.

One of the men who were on the staff on July 4 had gone to the number two store before the inquiries concerning the cheese commenced, said witness in cross-examination by Mr. Rutherford. That was the only variation. During the inquiry the carrier informed witness that he called at Johnston’s next door to see if ho had left the cheese there by mistake. Norman E. Simm, employed by Johnston and Co,, ;oave evidence that the carrier Couchman’ came to the store in August and ajs’ked if any cheese crates from Hurleyville had been left there by mistake. “There is no evidence as to the delivery of the cheese at defendants’ premises,” said Mr. Reeves in concluding the defence. Mr. Rutherford replied that the statements of the three witnesses should be ample proof that the cheese had been delivered. “It is hardly likely they would come to the court and commit perjury,” concluded Mr. Rutherford.

The magistrate remarked that in a civil action the onus of proof rested with plaintiff. In the present case the observance of a recognised business precaution—that of securing a receipt

'for the delivery, of goods—should have been available as a. means of proof. It had also to be considered that a teriVi of the contract of sale was that the price should be decided upon after inspection of the cheese on delivery. • “There ha,s been talk on both sides of perjury in the case,” continued the magistrate. “I do not wish to comment upon that, but I’■ca'iindt hold that the onus of proof lias been dWcliarged and I must 11011-suit plaintiffs;” Costs amounting to £2 10s 6d were allowed defendants.