C.T.A. SUED.

Taranaki Daily News, 13 March 1920, Page 5

C.T.A. SUED.

"SURPRISE PACKET" THAT WAS A SURPRISE. COURT AWARDS £5 DAMAGES. An action in regard to a piano offered by the Auckland Commercial Travellers' and Warehousemen's Association as a priz.; on their Surprise Packet Day on November 2Hth was brought before Mr. J. W. Poynton' in the Magistrate's Court, Auckland, this week, by Mrs. Margaret. Garland Pike (Mr. Inder), who claimed £IOO damages from the association (Mr. Meredith). Plaintiff stated that the defendants advertised as one of the prizes to he 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 thaf.it was pointed out by 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 was it worth £IOO. 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 missing. Upon the instrument being valued £SO was offered for it.

Other evidence was given to the effect that the piano was sold for JJSO, and after renovation was increased in value to £7O.

For the defence, Mr. Meredith stated he had evidence to show that the association had paid £95 for the piano, and also that the "Horace Brinsmead" piano was the onlv 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 nnwt have been mistaken, hi regard to the valuation of the piano he would take the cost and selling value of the instrument at £!ls, 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 £'> damages and costs, and he gave judgment accordingly.