THURSDAY, NOV. 24th.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XXXII, Issue 272, 24 November 1898, Page 2

THURSDAY, NOV. 24th.

On the Court resuming this morning A. A. Soaife, who had been appointed to take accounts, gave evidence. He said lhat on going through the books he found that there was a difference of over £100 between the deficiency shown (£101) and the plaintiff's original claim. He gave evidence at some leng.h as to the details ot the accounts, Nafchaniel.Dodgshnn, the plaintiff, said that when he appointed defendant to take charge of the Thorpe store he specially cautioned him to adhere, in his sales, to the invoice prices, except in special cases, and in these cases the amount of reducUon should be placed to an allowance account. He also gave defendant instructions as to allowances for breakages, leakages, etc. At the end of tbe first quarter a deficiency of £75 was shown on stocktaking, and at the end of the next quarter there was again a deficit of .£4O. A further deficiency was afterwards disclosed, and witness terminated defendant's engagement. He wrote ta defendant, saying that he must have been making generat reductions, and afterwards he saw him and asked him for an explanation, Defendant said he could give no explanation. and did not say that he hud been making geuerai reductions. Defendant had kept an allowance account for three months only; he was allowed full value for all items entered into the allowance account. Most of the prices in the list supplied to defendant were based on the invoices of Mr May, for whom defendanthad previously been keeping the store, Witness could not account for the difference between the amount of his claim and the sura arrived at by Mr Scaife. W. J; Miller, manager of plaintiff's Brightwater store, said that he had had the supervision of the Thorpe store. De--i fendaut had been surcharged for shortages in weight of butter, eto, sent to Brightwater. Ho knew that in some cases defendant had charged these items back to the sellers, Dofendant never attempted to account for deficiencies by reductions in pries, D. M. Forsyth, accountant, stated that he was in plaintiff's employ during part of the period that defendant had charge of the Thorpe store. He distinctly denied that he told defendant that it was aU " bosh "to keep a discount account. It was possible that the discrepancy of £100 was owing to an error in the stock-taking. When witness assisted in taking stock he was particularly careful, as ne was so instructed. Judgment was given for defendant without costs.