SON-IN-LAW ONLY AGENT

Taranaki Daily News, 13 September 1934, Page 8

SON-IN-LAW ONLY AGENT

ACTION IN THE PATEA COURT.

CARRIAGE OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS.

Judgment for W. C. Glenny and Co. Ltd., transport agents, Patea, was given by Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M., in an involved case in the Patea Magistrate’s Court yesterday. The defendants were Mr. and Mrs. G. Bettridge, sometime of Normanby and more recently of Moumahaki, and a leading part was played by their son-in-law, W. C. Beer, a rail--1 way employee stationed at Moumahaki. The claim was for £4 10s, and costs were allowed plaintiff. Beer proved a difficult witness and was stood down. Mrs. Bettridge denied responsibility for the debt, stating that it hafi been incurred willingly by Beer as cost of the removal of furniture from Normanby to Moumahaki on February 28 last. Beer had asked, according to Mrs. Bettridge, I that his wife’s parents should go to MouI mahaki to live .with their daughter and ! himself. He had secured Bettridge, who was on relief works at Nonnailby, a contract for scrub-cutting and was prepared to pay the cost of the removal of Bettridge’s furniture. The plaintiffs witnesses denied the statements, Beer having, according to them, merely acted as an agent for the Bettridges in.securing Glenny to transport the furniture. Mr. D, Milliken appeared for Glenny arid Mr. B. Cowdell for the Bettridges. Beer said that ..on February 24 he was in Hawera with his wife , and another. He had also seen Mrs. Bettridge, who had said that they were shifting from Normanby to Moumahaki. Beer had been asked to find the cheapest way of moving the goods to Moumahaki. Glenny had been engaged at a cost of £4 10s on the understanding that witness .was to receive the money from the Bettridges and pay it to Glenny. When shown Glenny’s account the Bettridges had denied any responsibility for payment. At no tune had he promised to pay Bettridge’s account. Cross-examined by Mr. Cowdell, Beer denied that he had arranged for the Bettridges to stay with him at Moumahaki. He had not promised Mrs. Bettridge to pay for the cartage. Mrs. E. J. Beer, mother of the previous witness, said she was present at the interview between Beer and Mrs. Bettridge, and it had been arranged for the Bettridges to pay the account to Glenny as soon as they arrived at Moumahaki. W. C. Glenny, director of a Patea transport firm, said that Bettridge had denied all responsibility. Glenny had then threatened legal proceedings. He knew from the first that Beer was acting on Bettridge’s behalf. To Mr. CowdeL he said he had sent only one account to Beer. He had been “informed by Beer that Bettridge was going to pay. C. E. Lankshear, driver for Glenny, said Bettridge had travelled in the cab with witness. He denied that in a conversation with Beer at the time that any word of accounts had been mentioned. The defence was that there was never any authority for Beer to incur the debt, said Mr. Cowdell.

Mrs. Lily Bettridge said she attended to all accounts for her husband. In January witness’ daughter had married Beer, and shortly after Beer had written asking witness and her husband to go to Moumahaki. Those present at the interview at Hawera were witness, Beer and Beer's wife; no one else. She told Beer they had no money to shift the goods. Beer had offered to pay for their cartage, and had made arrangements to shift their furniture and household goods. Beer had no authority from witness or her husband to. incur debts. The first account had been received by witness in May, when Beer, who was present, had snatched the account from her, saying, “Oh, I pay that.” She had explained matters in a letter to Glenny and had since received no accounts. There had been unhappy differences between Beer and his wife. To Mr. Milliken she said her husband had gone to Moumahaki on a gorsegrubbing contract. The job had been taken in the anticipation of securing a certain amount of money.

To the magistrate, Mrs. Bettridge said that the relations had been strained in the middle of April. The Bettridges had stayed with Beer from the ■ last day of February to June 30. Beer, in May, had still offered to pay the account owing to his desire to become reconciled with his' wife. When leaving, the Bettridges had arranged for their own transport. Beer had contracted to pay the account, said Mr. Cowdell, but owing to the quarrel he had changed his mind. On Glenny’s evidence it was clear, said the magistrate, that Beer had acted for Bettridges. It was unlikely that a railway man earning about £3 18s a week would offer to pay the cost of cartage, especially as he had just been married.