WELL TREATED

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 530, 6 December 1928, Page 13

WELL TREATED

FARMER WHO SUED STOCK FIRM "NOBLE ASSISTANCE” IN BAD TIMES (From pur Own Correspondent ) HAMILTON, Wednesday. Finality was reached in the Supreme Court to-day in the case in which Karl Joseph-Hegglin, farmer, Aria (Mr. M. 11. Hampson), sought to recover from Abraham and Williams, Ltd., stock agents, Te Kuiti (Mr. 33. M. Maekersey), the sum of .£3,753. The claim represented various losses plaintiff claimed he had suffered through the alleged mismanagement of his affairs by the defendant company duriiig and subsequent to a visit he paid to Switzerland in 1920. He alleged that owing to defendants’ negligence in not paying interest he was forced to sell his farm at a loss of £ 1,644 and stock at a loss of £3OO. He also claimed £ 500 general damages. Losses on wool and sheep were also alleged to have been suffered. During the cross-examination of plaintiff by Mr. Mackersey, numerous letters and receipts signed by plaintiff were produced showing that authority for certain of defendant’s actions had been given by him, and that money had been received for which he now claimed. His Honour pointed out that the defendant company had saved plaintiff £450 by its action in seizing a quantity of wool over which it had security from an agent who went bankrupt. In one letter plaintiff thanked the firm for the “noble assistance’* it had given him in bad times. He admitted having refused to accept a cheque for £312 tendered to him when it was found that this amount was due. His reason was that he wanted to know that the accounts were correct. At the close of plaintiff’s evidence, his Honour said there was no legal basis for many items claimed. Many were barred,by the Statute of Limitations, while Hegglin wrote letters admitting that they were properly charged. All the interest items went by the board, for they had been properly charged. The company did not dispute the claim of £312, which was admittedly wrongly charged. It had again and again remitted a cheque for this amount, plus interest to date, to Hegglin, but he would not accept it. The money was now in Court. Plaintiff claimed £IOO on the grounds that defendant purchased some rams which he contended were not suited to the country. His Honour said he could not see any legal basis for that claim. OBSESSED WITH GRIEVANCES Air. Hampson said when plaintiff discovered the error of £312 in his account he believed that the mistake was deliberate, and so obsessed did he become with his grievances against the-, firm that no legal advice would satisfy him regarding the justice of his claims. Mr. Mackersey kaid tliat’ Abraham and Williams carried -Hegglin on for years after they founcl he. \yas in a difficult financial ' position.' ; account often greatly exceeded the value of their security, and they could have sold him up at any .irae. The company, however, had nothing to do with the sale of Hegglin’s property. Hegglin had had a very good sale, and up to the time of the sale had complete confidence in the firm. The defendant had a complete answer to all the allegations in plaintiff’s claim, continued Mr. Mackersey. Hegglin got very fair and generous treatment and the defendant repudiated .any suggestion of dishonesty or mismanagement. But for the unfortunate error concerning the £312, nothing would have been heard of the claim. Defendant had paid £372 4s Id into Court in settlement of the items which were admittedly due to plaintiff and had been offered to him. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £372 4s Id. the amount paid into Court. Plaintiff was ordered to pay defendant costs on a claim for £3,753, the amount; plaintiff sought to recover.