TAXI DRIVERS’ DIFFERENCE

Taranaki Daily News, 11 August 1932, Page 8

TAXI DRIVERS’ DIFFERENCE

BROKEN PARTNERSHIP CLAIM. JUDGMENT FAVOURS DEFENDANT. “The evidence to-day has caused me some doubt, and I must say 1 entertain a great deal of suspicion. But suspicion is not proof. The onus lies with the plaintiff to prove that an agreement existed, and, although I have a. strong suspicion that plaintiff’s case is well founded, I can do nothing on the evidence but deliver judgment in favour of the. defendant.” With these words Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M., concluded a re-hearing of the case, wherein Walter, A. Dahl proceeded against Harold Wills for the sum of £25, alleged to be the amount specified to be paid by the first of the two to break a partnership in the Silver Band Taxi Service at Hawera. Judgment was given in defendant’s favour at the first hearing some weeks ago, but at the rehearing yesterday fresh evidence was given. William Craigie, a bootmaker in business in High Street close to Dahl’s office, stated in evidence that on Saturday, June 11, Wills went into his shop during the morning. Wills appeared to be excited, and asked what rent witness paid. Upon being told the amount, Wills offered to pay half the rent if witness would permit him to put in a telephone. Witness drew attention to some obstacles in the way of such a course. Until witness saw the case mentioned in the papers he knew nothing of any trouble between the partners. Wills called again several times and, although nothing was said of the telephone, Wills mentioned the trouble with Dahl. Wills’ told him that Dahl was holding his trumpet on account of an agreement between them whereby the first man to leave the partnership was to pay the other £25. Witness asked if the agreement was in writing, and Wills said it was not. After the re-hearing had been applied for Wills visited him. “ ‘What about this agreement, case, Craigie?’ he asked,” continued witness. “ ‘What about it,’ I replied. ‘I didn’t say anything about a £25 agreement between us,’ said Wills. ‘That’s what you said to me,’ I replied.” Wills thten asked witness to visit his counsel, but witness refused. Harold Wills, defendant, said he went into Craigie’s shop only once in the morning, and that was about 11.45 a.m. While in the sho'p the subject of conveijsation was only the telephone. Witness then heard voices, and, from the door, saw Dahl and Rae talking together. Witness called Rac to him. They talked together at the door, and Craigie, leaning over his counter a few feet away, joined in the talk. Rae said he had been talking to Dahl about the affair of the previous night. “I then said to Rae: ‘That’s nothing. Look at the beauty he’s putting across me. He’s seized my trumpet and is accusing me of promising to pay £25 if I broke the partnership, or an agreement to that effect.’ Craigie then said that, if he were me, he would take the trumpet off Dahl. . All this conversation was taking place between the three of us. Craigie asked if there was a written agreement, and when I told him there was not he said it was no good Dahl trying to do a thing like that unless he had proof. I explained that Dahl and his wife intended to swear to the agreement. I said that, had there been any agreement, I would have been the one to have it in writing.” Later in the day witness dropped in at Craigie’s shop to say he was finishing np with Dahl on. the Monday. Bashford was there at the time. He was dply in the shop twice that day. After, the issue'of the summons witness mentioned to Craigie that the police, case against Dahl had been postponed' a week and the civil case a fortnight.. Witness had never admitted to Craigie that there was-a £25 agreement between himself and Dahl. . Frances Edward Rae, service-car driver and salesman, corroborated the evidence of Wills concerning the conversation at the shop. Craigie, he said, was included in the talk. Craigie and Wills could have had further conversation after witness went away. In delivering judgment the magistrate stressed the necessity for written business agreements.