TIMBER CLAIM.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 13394, 30 May 1914, Page 5

TIMBER CLAIM.

, JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS.

At the Magistrate -,3 Court: this morning/ Mr R. S. Florence delivered his reserved judgment as follows in the case of the P..8. Sash aind Door Factory Co. (Mr Nolan) v. Arthm' Searle (Mr Coleman) i—

'.'This was an Action for : £l0 5s lOrl for certain timber alleged tp have been supplied by the plaintiff company to defendant at ii? 8d nut delivered. at Gishornc, logs a, credit v ,of 10s 'Cd. "ft)r., timber suppljpd to plaintiff by defendant. •;I l^ave gone into the evidence submitted to me on . both sides most exhaustively. , 1% consisted of docuttientary and oral evidence. I find the documentary, evidence wholly unreliable and; ' inconclusive." „TUe evidence' given on.. path. on. behalf pf plaintiff numerically and positively outweighs that given by defendant.-.. In fact it. is not only a. case* of 3to 1, but ,so far. as the main questions in dispute between the parties go is much stronger in Its conclvisiveness. than "defendant's. Had it been jevenly. balanced; I, should liaYelfe^t bound ••'to. ,nbn-s^it. plaintiff. If. *I could have detected t dis^aigreeninti betv^eew .;the| witnesses', Torj'plajlntiff I should have "felt! bound .wherever it Was yit«il ip have' s l et one off, .against tlie other and thus minimised or ,it, but on the edit trary, u I find such a7, close, corrolioratloh' "of plainti/f's. contention on all sides, tltat withoui mojc conclusive evidence ihan defendant has presented / am bound to give plaintiff 'judgnieut, although I hold grave doubts . about the actual' date of the plaintiff, c6mpany entering' into possession of. HaugUiei Parker and Co. 's' concerns, and. business. The ; defendants* action in the Ids Gd bel^ig credited to t,lie plaintiff's. account against him after he ■ had : paid, ' the ' prbjnisspry *not^' 'he gaVe to nccommodate 'HauglVie; . h^s delay |n brinsing rHaughic Jo account p>Jor fio Octobor i ?, ftltlfough he vwas in tlifi district up ta', that time; the fact of.. his '; many-, dealings!" lii; timber about this time, and his knowledge' in August that. tlio, plaintiff. company had actually taken <j>ver HaugtUe'-s concerns, all militate against him, although it is quite evident that he. arid Haughio had unsettled accounts 'between them. Judgment, must, be for plaintiff company for the amount of its claim, £10 5s lOd, and costs £4 25." •■•'•• . ■

REHEARING PROBABLE. His Worship added that counsel were at liberty to peruse' his notes to see how he had arrived at his decision. '

Mr Coleman said .he probably would later on, because he ■was instructed that since the action was before the Court it .ljfld 1 been ascertained that .. ; .th©.- evidence of other / Vcpr'di|r'ectoi's-:,jvas. that'-itj was not. uutil a cpnai'derable period after the date .set ouit ,in the. miput,e-book' that the mill', was taken qver by the eompnviy . '.'. Gonse^ueritly ' -he wou)4 ;prabubly he. applying,ior a re : hearing. „ , *■ ' :