HIRE OF SKATES.

Ohinemuri Gazette, Volume VIII, Issue 493, 14 May 1898, Page 3

HIRE OF SKATES.

At the S.M. Court ou Thursday before E. S. Bush, Esq., S.M., a cas<> of groat importance was heard. J. D. Hayes sued J. Gordon foi £25 10s. This was d claim for 25 week's hire of 52 pairs of skates at 10s per week, and also for £11 10, the value of the skates, and £2 for damages. Mr O'Meagher appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Moss for the defendant.

J. D. Hayes deposed that at present he was a shooting gallery proprietor.. On November 6, John Gordon met witness at Karangahake, and asked what he would let his skates for. Witness said he would let him have 50 pair for 10s per week. Defendant agreed to this. W itness did not know of any person named Howe in connection, with the skates. On December 12, Gordon said Howe was running the rink in. conjunction with him. The morning after Gordon took the skates he told witness there were 52 "pairs of skates. Witness valued the skates at 4s per pair, and the extra sundries at 15s. He also claimed £2 for damages, as he had engaged the Whangarei Hall on March 1 and was unable to open there as he had no skates. - -'' To Mr Moss.—l never, left anyone at Kelly's Hotel to take the skates. Witness had seen a lot of old skates at Karangahake on the bank. They looked as if they, had been there for months. Never made inquiries about a cart running over a ease of skates; but had heard all about it. Witness did not find out they were his skates. No one, seemed to know who owned them. .

At this 1 stage, Mr O'Meagher asked that all witnesses be ordered out of the Court. .

Cross-examination continued.—Witness waited at Karangahake for four days for the skates, after seeing Gordon about them at Waitekauri. Did not'remember giving Gordon, Eobertsou's receipt for skates. Offered to sell some'skates at Waitekauri for £7= The receipt was not given, to Gordon to show Howe the skates cost £5.

The S.M. said there seemed to be a lot of extraneous exigence.

Mr Moss held that it was all connected Avith the defence.

Cross-examination continued.—Witness told Gordon to leave the skates at the Hall. When Gordon first took the skates, he said that he and some others intended to run a rink at Karangahake. Remembered seeing Howe at Paeroa a few weeks ago. Then said that for £3 he would not press the case, provided the skates were returned. Did not instruct my. solicitor to sue for £12 10s for one year's rent, but for 10s per week. This closed the plaintiff's case. Mr Moss then addressed the Court. He called J, Gordon, who deposed that he knew Mr Hayes and also Mr Howe. At Karangahake,' a week before the skates were leased, Mr Hayes gave witness Kobinson's receipt to show to Howe. Witness showed this receipt to Howe. Never told Hayes he was going to run a rink. Hayes iised to ride in witness' coach. Howe said he would not buy the skates Witness offered Hayes 10s per month on behalf of Howe. Hayes accepted this. On being informed, Howe said bi'ing them up as soon as convenient. The case had hinges on it. Witness got it at the Karangahake Hall. Sometime after, Hayes asked witness to return the skates. Witness referred him to Howe. Hayes' said the skates wei'e to be sent to Kelly's Hotel. Witness considered he was Hayes' agent in the matter.

To Mr O'Meagher—Witness did not see anyone deliver the skates at Kelly's.

To the Bench. —-Hayes told me he wanted to sell the skates, and gave witness the. receipt to show Mr Howe. Only two or three days elapsed between thetime when witness returned the receipt and obtained delivery of the skates. Witness did not promise to return the skates in good order and condition. Witness never-told Hayes that he and Howe were running in shares. Mr Howe paid witness 4s for canying them up. This was paid the same evening. Told Hayes witness would not be responsible.

The Court then adjourned till 2.30 p.m.

On resuming, Wm. Howe gave evidence that Gordon hired the skates for him at the rate of 10s per month. He kept them a month and then returned them.

Witness was cross-examined at length. Wm. Douglas ami. Barnett also gave evidence. This closed the case for the defence.

The S.M., in giving judgment, said the evidence of the plaintiff and the

defendant was very contradictory. The plaintiffs statement is not corroborated by any witnesses, whereas the plaintiff's evidence. slightly corrobolates the defendant's. Taking all the evidence into consideration, he thought the plaintiff must be non-suited, with costs, £3 12s.