JUDGMENT FOR DEBT

Taranaki Daily News, 17 June 1932, Page 2

JUDGMENT FOR DEBT

CLAIMS MADE AT NEW PLYMOUTH.

NON-SUIT ON BUTCHER’S CLAIM.

Judgment by default was given by Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., on' the following claims for debt at New Plymouth yesterday:— Richard O’Brien v. H. Kendall, £8 2s 9d (costs £1 12s 6d); Taranaki Creameries Union v. Tai Ngaia, £1 An unsuccessful claim for £5 6s Id was brought against Thomas E. Mack by R. J. Daisley, both of them butchers at New Plymouth, , Daisley supplied his by-products to a boiling, down works at Fitzroy, and it was after this business was acquired by Mack that the trouble arose. It was submitted for the plaintiff that Mack had seen Daisley and asked him to continue to send his offal and bones to the works, and it was contended that Edgar King, who came into the matter, had merely acted as agent for Mack in collecting the material from Daisley. Payment had been variously made in cash and in pigs reared by Mack. The amount claimed was the balance alleged to be owing at the time when Daisley ceased to supply his by-products to Mack. Evidence on those lines was given by Daisley, who claimed that Mack had said that as he had given his business to another man he would not get paid at all, and denied he had been told King had taken tho works over. To the magistrate, Daisley admitted having made payments by cheque made out to King, and that King initialled or signed the book. Everything, went well while he had to do the paying, but as soon as there was something owing to him trouble arose.. Other evidence was given by Joseph Horlor, assistant to Daisley, and E. J. King, the latter alleging that since the issue of the summons Mack had seen him and asked him to say he had taken a lease of the works and that he was responsible for the account. Mack did not recognise him either as a principal or a partner. Counsel for Mack asked for a non-suit on the ground that King, was not the authorised agent of Mack, but was carrying on the business in the hope of leasing it. It was clear King had no authority to pledge Mack’s credit.

The magistrate said he would note the point. In evidence Mack said that at no time was King his agent. King had paid him £5O, £3O of which was in respect to some cattle and £2O for a deposit on the business. At first King considered purchasing and then leasing.

Cross-examined, he denied having- had the conversation alleged with King since the issue of the summons. He had told King Daisley was summoning him and that he would not pay the money because King and not he (Mack) owed it. In entering a non-suit, with £1 Is costs, the magistrate said he was influenced by the fact that Daisley and King had dealt directly with one another.