HOTEL TAKINGS.

Manawatu Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 2647, 16 May 1923, Page 8

HOTEL TAKINGS.

PLAINTIFF GETS £SOO DAMAGES. The hearing of the case in which. John Brandon (Mr Ongley) claimed £650 damages from Charles C. Deihl (Mr Cooper) for alleged false representation of the takings of an hotel, was proceeded with at' the Supreme, Court yesterday before His Honour Sir John Salmond. After further cross-examination of plaintiff by Mr Cooper in regard to the takings of the hole), and the negotiations between the agents and parties on the lines of yesterday's depositions, Frederick Hewitt, of Feildlng, wool and skin buyer,, also gave evidence. In giving his evidence, defendant, Charles C. Deihl, said that before he sold, he carried on a business at Rangiwahia. It was about August, 1913, that he got the hotel. He paid £4,500 and the takings were represented as £45. In 1920 he decided to sell, and placed the property on thc market. He referred to the incidents leading up to the meeting with Brandon, whom witness told thc takings were about £45 per week. He explained that he kept about six eows, which brought in about £l5O. No deal was fixed up then, but later on he heard that Brandon was able to deal, and witness went' to Hamilton about the beginning of July. Witness showed him the bank-book, but did not show him thc ledger, and the plaintiff had not asked for any of the invoices. Witness said that he had an exercise book in which he kept the accounts, but this was burnt when shifting. He returned to Hamilton later and arranged to purchase the farm, while plaintiff was to take over the hotel at £4,500. He subsequently ascertained that plaintiff was dissatisfied, and witness offered to take back the hotel. Witness kept a banking account, and he paid his taking l ! and any sales that he got from his farm into the account.

To Mr Ongley: He told plaintiff he had been there eight years. "Witness kept no other books except the exercise books and bank book, and his income tax had been made up from these. He may have said at the last trial that he did not give the takings as £SO. "I admitted that I gave all the particulars in the last trial. . . I do not remember 1 being asked whether I had given the takings as £so."' He was aware that the transaction was not settled when his books were burnt. He always kept large stocks. When witness sold, he had only £lofl or thereabouts, in the last year he had disposed of over £I,OOO worth of stock, and the sales for - the two years would total £2600. He had bought a lot of stock and paid cash for it. Witness had not kept* a ledger for four or five years, but he kept a ledger up to 101 S. This did not have the yearly takings shown at the back. and he did not remember showing it to plaintiff. Witness did not remember saying that he showed plaintiff the ledger in the last hearing. The lerfger- was destrojVd with all the other things. Further questioned by counsel, witness said he did not remember an item of £4OO shown in his bank book. Ho did not know from whom the money had come. He had changed a lot of cheques for customers and a few of the cheques might be paid back into the account. He admitted that £374 was drawn in the year 1 020. Evidence was also given by Wilfred George Deihl, a farmer at 'Rangiwahia, and Edward G. Sim, an accountant at Talmerston North. That concluded the ease, and in addressing the jury, Mr Cooper mentioned the the allegation against' the defendant that of fraud would have to be proved with as much certainty as a criminal case. The defendant 1 was in all probability not a very sharp business man, and had been running an up-country hotel. It had

been denied by both the defendant and his son that the takings had been represented at £SO. Counsel contended that the damages, if proved, would bo nil and the plaintiff had got a good bargain by getting the hofel at the price which had been paid by the defendant prior to 3 013. Further, t'he defendant, had offered to

take, the hotel back, but this the plaintiff had not deemed advisable. Counsel for plaintiff, in addressing the jury, submitted two questions for consideration, namely, were the takings represented at £SO, and was this statement true? and were t'he takings stated to the plaintiff to be beween £4O and £45, and whether this was a fact. Ho reviewed the evidence at considerable length, and maintained that defendant's evidence had been unsatisfactory. Counsel held that the fairest way to judge would be to take the two years' stock purchase. It did seem strange that one book should survive the fire.

Tn summing up, Hi* Honour referred to the direct conflict of evidence over the question of takings, and directed the jury that they would have

to judge the case, from the probabilities. iHs Honour also referred to the

evidence of the defendant hi which he had placed the hotel in another agent's hands, and represented the takings to be £SO. It also seemed that defendant did not recollect' clearly actually what he did say at the last trial. His Honour also commented on the mysterious disappearance of 'books by both parties. The defendant had lost the very book which •would have shown his actual takings. However, some idea should be obtained of the takings by assessing the .plaintiff's takings since being in occupation and these were given as £3O. The .tary after an absence of 50 minutes returned a verdict' for the plaintiff with damages at £SOO. Judgment was entered accordingly, the question of costs berns? deferred.