A DRAPER'S MIX-UP.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 22 May 1923, Page 4

A DRAPER'S MIX-UP.

LADY'S OOAT MISDELIVERED. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. At the Stratford Magistrate's Court on Monday morning, before Mr. A M Mowlem, S.M., J. K. Amesbury (Mr. Moss) proceeded against Adolph Manoy (Mr. Coleman) to recover £19 10s, the value of a lady's velour coat, and £50 as special damages. In evidence, plaintiff stated that about September last a customer of his asked to be supplied with a coat. She wanted a novel coat, which nobody else would have one like. In November witness showed his customer a. number of samples from the Classic Manufacturing Co., and one was chosen, an order being given for certain alterations. Delivery was promised in February last. The customer said she was prepared to pay anything from £20 to £25. The agent of the Classic Manufacturing Co. guaranteed that no similar coat would be sold in Stratford. On March 3 witness got an invoice for the coat, which did not arrive, and later advice was received from the Clastic Manufacturing Co. that the coat was in the hands of Mr. Manoy. Witness sent his boy twice to Manoy's for the coat, but he did not get it. Witness went down and saw defendant, who refused to deliver the coat. Witness telegraphed to the Classic Co. regarding defendant's refusal, and was later told that the coat had been sold by defendant. At his request the Classic Co. agreed to make another similar coat, but could not guarantee it would be just the same as the coat in dispute, as the firm had run out of the materials and the trimmings. Witness paid for the first coat, and made a demand on defendant for payment for it. Defendant ignored this demand for a month. Mr Coleman, for.the defence, said Miss Manoy had visited Macky. Logan's, in Auckland, and had been inquiring about similar coats to that in t question. About a week later a parnpl v ' containing a coat arrived thorough thopost. Thinking the arrival of the coat a result of her inquiries. Miss Manoy obtained the approximate price of the coat (between 11 and 12 guineas) from the firm's traveller and later wired to Auckland for a confirmation of the price. Miss Manoy fixed the selling price of the coat at 18 guineas and • sold it. At about the time of the delivery of the coat Amesbury called and Manoy told him that he had got the coat, in fact, Manoy probably did not know anything about it. Rebecca Manoy said she was entirely iin charge of her fallier's showroom*. She received the parcel contsiiflng the coat, thinking it was her own. After wiring Auckland for a confirmation of the price, she received a wire stating that the dtoit belonged to Amesbury, but it had already been sold, although not delivered to the buyer. Having made the sale, witness thought iv ad- . visable to deliver the coat, which vas done 'a, day or two later. The Magistrate said it appeared that the whole matter had begun in ovjot and continued in error. In the first place it was the duty of Manoy's agent to make sure that the parcel v as his own. and the liability of doing so 1 was his. There was neglect again when the parcel was received at the shop, as it was the duty of some one to make sure to whom the parcel belonged. When it was found that the coat bel longed to Amesbury the defendant, by • his servaits. was again in error in" rot handing it over. The only a?£3cfc causing His Worship, any thought was as to whether the damages sustained were too remote. Judgment was given for r the value of the poat, £10 10s, plus £5 :■ special damages and costs. —Post