A MISLEADING TELEGRAM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume L, Issue 15251, 14 March 1913, Page 8

A MISLEADING TELEGRAM.

; TWO people hoaxed. [bt telegraph.—own CORRESPONDENT.] i Gisborne, Thursday. A somewhat peculiar action for £20 damages was investigated at the Magistrate's Court to-day, when Albert Gleeson, labourer, proceeded against William Hab- ; good, jun., carrier, on the following statement of claim: "On or about December ; 4, 1912, Jtbe plaintiff received, at ' Matawai, a telegram as follows, " 'Meet me in Gisborne, Thursday, ten o'clock. — Lucy.' In consequenc ; of the telegram the plaintiff proceeded to « Gisborne and incurred travelling and • hotel expenses to the extent of £2 16s, 5 and considerable loss of time. The plaintiff has since ascertained that the telegram was transmitted to him by the defendant. The plaintiff claims £20." Plaintiff's counsel explained that the facts were peculiar. Plaintiff was the only man of that name residing at Matawai. When the plaintiff arrived in Gisborne there was no " Lucy "to meet. When he subsequently discovered who sent the telegram no explanation was offered. Defendant's counsel said defendant was the victim of a most unusual course of events. A man whom defendant did not : know at the time got defendant to ; take two boxes to Matawai and gave him i two consignment notes bearing different • names. The man said if defendant sent ' a wire worded as above, and signed "Lucy," the recipient would understand i what it meant. As it happened, defendant j addressed the telegram to Gleeson, Matawai, the name on the consignment note. 1 . Realising there had been a mistake, de- ( fendant bad acted honestly, and paid into ] Court £2 12s, the amount he considered ' sufficient to compensate the plaintiff. De- 1 fendant did not know plaintiff, and was ] altogether unaware that plaintiff had a < friend named Lucy. It appeared from the subsequent evidence, that the packages l contained sly-grog, hence the object of * the telegram, and the fictitious names on l the consignment note. i Mr. W. A. Barton, S.M., said there was < no doubt plaintiff had suffered. some loss 1 in consequence of the defendant's action, 1 and it was only right that he should be ' reasonably compensated. The amount paid into Court was a reasonable compensation, 1 I and plaintiff would be given judgment for < .that amount* ■