VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF

Temuka Leader, Issue 10052, 10 February 1927, Page 2

VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF

IN DISPUTED CLAIM, FOR GOODS SUPPLIED. The case of Gapper and* Sheen (Mr F. J. Smith) v. Wright Bros., adjourned from the last Court day, came up- for hearing before Mr C, R. Orr-Walker at the Temuka Magistrate's Court on Tuesday morning. This was a disputed claim for £9 Is 3d for goods supplied, and tho Magistrate , adjourned the case to enable defendants' bank book to be produced to see if an account for meat supplied to defendants by Nicholas and Co, had been paid by

cheque. When the case was. called 1 there was' no appearance of defendants, and Mr Smith intimated that he had received a letter from Mr Ulrich' (counsel for defendants), who wrote that his clients' bank book showed that a cheque for £2 17s 9d » had' been paid to Nicholas and Co., and therefore it was hardly ne ; ces-- ' sary for him to appear in Court. The Magistrate said he would deal with the case as it stood. The amounts were £1 10s 3d on May 30, and £1 7s Od on June 5, 1922, and the cheque for £2 17s lid had been paid to Nicholas and Co. ' Defendants at this juncture put •,

in an appearance in Court. The Magistrate said it was quite plain.' Part of the account was for goods which had gone to Westaway's on May 30, and Mr Ulrich admitted that a cheque was given. In reply to Mr Smith, His Worship stated that he did not want to see Mr Nicholas. He said the case as" it develpped indicated that, a mistake .had arisen, that somebody else had got the goods from the plaintiffs. That was the trend'"of the case, and obviously was .the defence. T/he evidence clearly showed that"the. goods were actually sold and dieiivered. The plaintiffs, through good book-keeping, were able to prove each item, but it certainly indicated when the defence was set up that there may have been a mistake. It was difficult to decide these cases, and they had to

seize upon some side issue to 'come to a right conclusion. Defendants had sworn positively that they did not get the goods from plaintiffs, /but got goods from another grocer. The statement that the meat was 'delivered was sworn positively to be incorrect. One of the defendants swore that though he got sausages, lie had never got any quantity, and the other went further to say that all meat for the camp had been supplied from their own sfieep. They also swore that they paid no cheque, but it was proved-that a cheque was paid for the account for, meat. He had come to the conclusion that either the defendants had shockingly bad,memories, or they had wilfully told untruths to mislead the Court. He was not going to say, but would leave it at that. He was not going to accept their evidence and would give judgment for the plaintiffs. He would go furtfier, and say he was quite confident that had those facts been before defendant's counsel, he would never' have carried the, case as far as he did. Counsel himself was very surprised at the evidence of Bill, for it was not until he (the Magistrate) had asked questions that they found Bill was not at Westawa'y's. at all, and had very nearly inadvertently misled the Court and counsel. Judgment was accordingly entered for the plaintiffs for £9 Is 3d, costs £2 4s, solicitor's fee £l, 6s, arid witnesses' expenses.£3 15s.