VALUE OF BOOK DISPUTED

Taranaki Daily News, 17 October 1930, Page 9

VALUE OF BOOK DISPUTED

WORTH £l5O OR SHILLING?

UNUSUAL CLAIM IN WELLINGTON

DISAPPEARANCE EROM DEALER’S.

By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. A. book said to be a first edition worth £l5O but which two experts are prepared to say is worth only one shilling was the subject of an unusual action in the Magistrate’s Court to-day to recover the book, which defendant confessed he no longer possessed. Plaintiff was H. G. Rogers (Mr. Q Godwin), settler, Wellington, and defendant J. H. Saunders (Mr. Spratt), dealer, Wellington. The book was said to be a first edition of Alexander Pope (published in 1781-1783) and its value £l5O. Mr. J. S. Barton, S.M., presided. Counsel for Rogers said the question to be argued was whether Saunders was liable for the loss of the book. Counsel for Saunders admitted that Saunders had received the book from Rogers, ; that it had not been returned and that it could not possibly be returned because it had been either lost or stolen. It was contended that the assessment of the claim was wholly ab-

'; surd. There were only one or two • people in Wellington who could place /.j..- any values on books, among whom was A Mr. Johannes C. Andersen, librarian of the Turnbull Library, who would say that the book was worth Is, certainly . - not ss, and. that if it came into his hands he would throw it into the waste paper basket. Dr. Schofield, Parliamentary librarian, would say the same thing. The assessment had been made on a total misconception of facts. ' Speaking with regard to the claim for the return of the book from Saunders, Mr. Spratt said the value of the book - must be arrived at before the costs of the action could be determined. Secondly, there had been no negligence on the part of Saunders. It was an extraordinary claim to be brought—a claim for £l5O for an edition of Alexander Pope of 1781-1783 which could not have been a first edition because Pope died in 1774. Mr. Goodwin said Rogers had come •from England some years ago with a hobby for collecting books. The book concerned in the present case Rogers bought at a sale in London for £3. Although it was not evidence, some London dealers in. old books to Rog-: era. took his volume said it was valu--1 able. Rogers was to be given a commission for effecting a sale. At varioi times later Rogers called to collect the book but was put off by different excuses. It subsequently transpired that Saunders coaid not produce the book. Rogers wanted the return of the book, and it was not necessary to ask ■•', for its value. Rogers was entitled to the return of the book. The question of its value could be entered into later. Argument ensued as to the position of Saunders if an order were m/de for the return of a book which he no longer possessed. The magistrate said evidence as to value would have to be called, and he adjourned the hearing • until next Thursday to enable that evidence to be brought.