A GUEST OR A CUSTOMER?

Taranaki Daily News, 1 February 1927, Page 11

A GUEST OR A CUSTOMER?

VISIT TO MOTUK.AWA CAMP BUTCHER ENJOYS FREE MEALS. OBJECTS WHEN PAYMENT ASKED. The Inglewood Court was occupied for some time yesterday over the question of whether tho meals suppled to an Inglewood business man when delivering meat to one of the workers’ eamps at Motnkawa in connection with tho hydro construction works were to be paid for or were given as a mark of hospitality. The Magistrate (Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M.) finally non suited both parties on a claim and counter claim arising out of the affair. The case was one in which F. A. Reesby and Sons, butchers, sued Howard Quagle and F. Lavery for £5 2s 6d, being balance of account owing. The defendants counter-claimed for £5 2s Cd, being the charge for a number of meals alleged to have been supplied. Plaintiff’s evidence was to the effect that in March, 1926, he entered into an agreement with Wilson and Smith, the chairman and secretary respectively of a committee set up by the workmen to run the camp on co-operative lines, to supply that camp with meat, etc., which he had to deliver at Motukawa. A condition of the agreement was that tho account had to be paid fortnightly, and that was done regularly. On the final settlement for the meat supplied from September 17, to September 21, £24 7s 2d, the sum of £5 2s Gd was deducted for meals provided during the term he had been supplying meat. That was the first intimation that he had that the meals were to be charged for. In fact the only occasions meals had been mentioned was when the cook invited him in to have a cup of tea. Again, when he brought Smith out from Inglewood and ho invited him in to dinner, and also on a third occasion when ho complained at the dista,._j (three chains) that the meat had to be carried. The cook had said there was always a meal when he came across. He might have had nine meals but mostly had a cup of tea in the kitchen. SOME MEAT SHORT WEIGHT. Under cross-examination, witness admitted that on the last occasion he had gone out the meat had been weighed by tho men, and in some instances It bad been over and in some under weight. Meat, especially corn beef, would lose weight if carted 15 miles. He knew that numbers of visitors went to the camp, but he had never seen a notice to the effect that all meals were to be paid for at 2s fid eaeh. Including butter, etc., that he had purchased for the camp, his fortnightly accounts had run' as high as £6l. H. Lavery, one of the defendants, gave evidence that a committee of five men with a chairman and secretary had been set up by the men to run the camp on co-operative lines. Each of the 40 or 45 men paid in £1 and the secretary was paid 6s per week. Rules were drawn up, one of which was that all meals to visitors were to be charged 2a 6d, and men from other camps were to be charged Is 6d. There was never any intention of offering meals in a spirit of hospitality, as with the large number of daily visitors that would have cost the men too much. They suspected that tho meat was short weight, so they purchased scales, weighed it, and discovered discrepancies amounting to 14s, 12s 6d, and 18s. The contract was terminated about September 24, about which time witness took over the secretarial duties from Mr.' Smith, and an account was made up for meals supplied. The amount concerned was deducted from the final payment. They had been in correspondence with Mr. Reesby’s solicitor until November 10 over the matter, and as they heard nothing further considered tho matter had been settled. Two or three days before Christmas, therefore, they settled all accounts, wound up the camp, refunded each man his £1 and the men were now scattered all over the plaee, having left the job. Witness had comb from Wellington to answer the summons, which he had received on Christmas Eve. No one had any authority from the committee to give free meals.

DELAY IN SENDING ACCOUNT. Counsel asked why an account had not been submitted for the meals during the currency of the contract, instead of waiting until after the dispute, when the contract had concluded. Witness said they had not deducted the meals from the fortnightly payments because they thought Mr. Reesby would have paid for them. He had checked the meals from the number of visits Mr. Reesby had paid to the camip, namely, twice weekly. In reply to the Magistrate, witness said that all money had been disbursed, and if any refund were to be made to plaintiff it would have to be borne by defendants.

The Magistrate said that it seemed very eurious that so many months had been allowed to pass without an account for meals being rendered to Reesby. His difficulty was that no contract had been made with defendant but with Smith. That perhaps might be got over by the equity and good conscience clause. There was also to be considered the fact that the money had all been disbursed, and he did not think it would be right to saddle these men with the payment of it. The contract ftt-d been made with Smith, and if Smith invited plaintiff to have meals ho should pay for them. As far as Reesby was concerned, he admitted that he had some meals. Defendant should hare retained the money longer than he did before disbursing it. It was certainly a loose kind of arrangement, but he did not think it was sufficient reason to saddle defendants with the whole of the liability. He therefore non suited on the claim and counterclaim without costs.