FURNITURE SALE DISPUTE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17275, 26 September 1919, Page 5

FURNITURE SALE DISPUTE.

MESSAGE BY TELEPHONE.

COURT RESERVES DECISION.

The adjourned case in which Matilda Stephens (Mr. J. Lilly) sought to recover from Duder Brothers, Devonport (Mr. A. Moody), and Leonard Coakley, (Mr. Endean), auctioneer, the sum of £125, of which £100 represented the value of furniture alleged to have been wrongly sold I and £25 as damages, was continued before i Mr. J. W. Poynton, S.M., at the Magisi trate's Court yesterday. J The facts, as previously outlined by the 1 plaintiff, were that Mrs. Stephens Jeit her lurniture with Duder Brothers, agrtting jto pay storage weekly. When she caJed •at the store she was informed that the ! goods had been sold at auction by Coakley, who had acted on the authority of a telei phone message. When the case was resumed yesterday Mr. Kndean objected to Coakley being joined as a party, saying that the plaint was based upon an action for damages for | negligence as bailee of goods. The only possible claim against Luakley, he said, I could be for conversion. ! Mr. Poynton reserved decision on the I point. i | Mr. J. J. Sullivan made application to j be joined in the case as representative of j the executors in the estate of the late John Ryan, who held a bill of sale over I the furniture in question. The magistrate I granted the request. I Mr. Lilly suited that the amount of the j bill of sale would be paid out of any moneys received as the result of the action. Mrs. Stephens gave evidence as to storing the furniture with Duder Brothers, and said that when she called to pay the ; storage she was informed that the furni- | ture had been delivered to Coakley. I It was stated that Mr. Duder had I refused to deliver the furniture to Coak--1 ley's carter until he had communicated ; with Coakley. The result of this inquiry I was that Coakley said he had received inI structions to sell the furniture and was ; prepared to guarantee payment of the : storage fees. It was later ascertained that i the instructions to Coakley to sell the furniture had been received over the telephone. I In answer to Mr. Endean, Mrs. Stephens ! said she had borrowed £17 10s upon the i furniture, but she was not aware that it j bad been sold at auction for £35. She had no idea who ordered the sale of the I furniture. After further evidence counsel addressed i the magistrate, who intimated that he | would deliver written judgment next I Thursday.