C.T.A. SUED

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10536, 12 March 1920, Page 4

C.T.A. SUED

“SURPRISE PACKET” THAT WAS A SURPRISE. COURT AWARDS~£S DAMAGES. An action in regard to a piano offered by the Auckland Commercial Travellers’ and Warehousemen's Association' as a prize on their Surprise Packet Day on November 38th was brought before Mr J. W. Poynton In the Magistrate’s Court, Auckland, this week, by. Mrs Margaret Garland Pike (Mr InJor), who claimed £IOO damages from the association (Mr Meredith)/ Plaintiff stated that the defendants advertised as one of the prizes to be won on the occasion named a piano valued at £IOO. She purchased a surprise packet, securing the ticket for the piano. Thereafter she received from the secretary of the defendant association an order on a local firm for a piano. Prior to this, plaintiff alleged, she had seen a “John Brinsmead” piano in the company’s window, which, she said, was placarded as the prize piano. She alleged also that it was pointed out hy an employee as the prize .piano. The instrument delivered to her on the following day, however, was a “Horace Brinsmead.” She claimed that the piano delivered was not the. one exhibited, nor rjas it worth £IOO. f

A. Adams, a cabinetmaker, stated that the piano was delivered at his residence in Carlton Gore , road on Saturday, November 29th. Part of the frame and moulding, which had been renovated, was rifissing. Upon the instrument being valued £SO was offeree!, for", it. Other evidence was given to the effect, that the piano was sold for £SO, and after renovation was increased in value to £7O.

FOr the defence, Mr Meredith stated ho had evidence ’to show that the association had paid £95 for the piano, and .also that the “Horace Bnnsmead’’ piano was. the only one exhibited.

Evidence was given that the piano supplied was the one ' exhibited, and that the ‘‘John Brinsmead” referred to was in another part of the shop. The magistrate said that, according to the evidence, the plaintiff must have been mistaken. In regard to the valuation of the piano ho would take the estimated selling, value jof, the instrument at £95, as given by a witness from the shop where it was exhibited, rather than the estimates given from the purchasers’ point, of view. The plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to £5 damages and costs, and he gave judgment accordingly.