WAIMATE.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVI, Issue 19105, 10 February 1932, Page 5

WAIMATE.

EARLY FROST. Three degrees of frost were registered at the Waimate Observatory by Mr F. Akhurst yesterday morning. PERSONAL. Professor D. B. Copland, of Melbourne University, left Waimate on Monday to join the “Monowai” at Wellington on his return home. BOWLING. The following players will represent the Waimate Bowling Club to play Kia Toa (the present holders of the Bristol Cup) on Thursday:— Collett (s), Sinclair. Boyd, Betten. Healey (s), Good, Betten, Ellis. Inkster (s), Holmes, Pollock. Knell. Nicol (s), Parry. Rathgen, Cameron. Robinson (s), Wright, Rev. Scott, Malthus. G. Brown (s), Turner, Purvis. Hay. D. Brown (s), Hood, Richardson, Grut. Grant (s), Akhurst, Reeve, Lewis. MAGISTRATE’S COURT. A sitting of the Magistrate’s Court was held yesterday morning, before Mr C. R. Orr-Walker, S.M. Traffic Regulations. Eric Dockriil was charged with riding a motor-cycle at Waimate with- ! out being the holder of a driver’s license, and was fined 5/-, with costs ! 10/-. Roland Henry Denton, for permitting a motor-car to be stationary in Queen Street except near the left edge of the street, was ordered to pay costs 10/-. Ronald Moore was charged with I obstructing the thoroughfare in Queen Street whilst in charge of a horse ar.d cart. Constable Harding stated that defendant had been absent from his vehicle, which was pulled up on its wrong side ten feet out from the kerb. Defendant was ordered to pay costs, 10/-. Maintenance. George Paterson applied for variation of a maintenance order in respect to his child. Complainant stated in ! evidence that he had been out of work since December last. The application was adjourned. Prohibition Order. A prohibition order against a man was renewed for a further term of twelve months, on the application of his wife. Civil Cases. Judgment by default was given in the case of Bishop and Co. v. P. H. White, claim £3 11s, costs £1 3s 6d. Sale of Wool. John Meehan claimed from Dalgety and Co. the sum of £SO Is 3d, being amount of the proceeds of the sale of wool assigned to the plaintiff by J. D. and H. A. Englebrecht. The claim was admitted by the defendants, but the setting off of the amount in an account run by the Company for Meehan was defended.

Counsel for Dalgety's said that in 1926 the plaintiff had obtained security from Englebrechts, and in August 1926 an account was opened by the firm for

“J. Meehan, account Englebrecht.” Since then the proceeds of the farm had been credited by Dalgety and Co. to Meehan, which arrangement was carried on consistently till 1931. The account was usually in credit, and accounts had been rendered to Meehan every quarter, and no complaints had ever been received. On the occasions when the account had been in credit, Meehan had received a cheque for the amount, and when in debit Meehan had paid a cheque to Dalgety’s. In January, 1931, defendants received wool as usual from Englebrecht which was sold, and the amount of the sale credited to Meehan’s account. The instructions to the firm were contained in certain letters, one of which I gave instructions that Meehan’s peri sonal dealings were to be kept separj ate from any dealings in which August Englebrecht took part. In 1931, when the wool was forwarded, there were no instructions other than usual, and the wool was sold, realising £SO Is 3d, this amount being credited to Meehan's account, which was in debit £B4. In a subsequent letter Meehan stated that plaintiffs had no right to sell the wool, and complained about the amount of the charges. A considerable rise had taken place in wool between the time of the sale and the receipt of Meehan’s letter. Dalgety’s later received a letter from Meehan’s solicitors indicating that Meehan would claim the difference between the low price obtained and the amount which would have been i realised if the wool had been sold after ! the rise, but the claim was now for the whole of the proceeds of the sale. It would be shown that Dalgety’s were merely acting in the capacity of bookkeepers for Meehan. Erling Zeisler, accountant for Dalgety’s, Timaru, gave evidence that 'the account was first opened for Englebrecht, but was shortly afterwards changed to “John Meehan, account of Englebrecht,” under verbal instructions from the plaintiff. Witness’s firm knew that Meehan had security over Englebrecht, and they could trade with the plaintiff as a i man of substance, but not with Englebrecht. The account was squared each year when farm proceeds were realised, usually in March. April or May. In 1929, the first time a set-off was not used in the account, the firm paid Meehan a cheque for £226, and Meehan paid Dalgetys a cheque for £65, but since then Meehan had had to pay a cheque to the firm each year, owing to the drop in the price of wool. Witness’s firm only recognised one account for Meehan, which showed a debit balance of £B7 on March 31, 1931. The defendant firm received a letter j (produced) the following May. Plaintiff received an account sale for the wool in dispute on February 20th, and forwarded a reply on March 17. Plaintiff’s solicitor: “Was that an undue delay?” Witness: “Yes. There was a rise of £3 per bale in the price of wool in that time.”

C. L. H. Gunn, manager for Dalgety and Co. at Waimate, gave evidence that Meehan had introduced August Englebrecht to witness as a likely buyer of sheep. Meehan stated that he would pay for any sheep purchased by Englebrecht. Two small mobs were sold, and first charged to Englebrecht, and later to the account of “Meehan account Englebrecht” at witness’s instructions. Meehan had later approached witness, stating that plaintiff’s accounts and those of Englebrecht were being confused, and witness forwarded instructions to head office that the accounts were to be kept separate. It was the firm’s practice to take selling instructions from the farmer holding the stock. As regards buying, Englebrecht always had direct instructions from Meehan. Witness knew that Meehan was dealing with other firms on Englebrecht’s account, and was also aware that Meehan was annoyed at Englebrecht buying a horse at a clearing sale, as he considered too dear a horse had been brought. A line of sheep sold by Englebrecht and credited to Meehan

was not the line bought for the account at the Studholme sale. The latter were ewes, and the line sold were lambs.

The Magistrate: “Then why is plaintiff not also claiming for this amount? This will have to be explained.” Continuing, witness stated that on instructions from Meehan’s solicitor he had gone out to view the wool for the purpose of insura ;e, and found that it had been forwarded to Timaru by Engelbrecht and sold. It was quite a common thing for such an occurrence to happen. Anything in the nature of goods for the farm was purchased by Englebrecht and charged to Meehan. John Meehan, plaintiff, said that he held a bill of sale on Englebrecht’s property. Witness had not bought 120 ewes at Studholme for Englebrecht in 1930, but had bought sheep for a man named Cooper. Witness had not bought sheep for Englebrecht since 1928, and he had informed Mr Gunn when Englebrecht's account was square in 1929 that anything further purchased by Englebrecht would be at Dalgety’s risk. Witness had disputed the purchase of a mare bought at auction by Englebrecht immediately it was knocked down. He could not remember receiving a credit for an amount of £l2 from the sale of two cows by Englebrecht. Witness had informed both Englebrecht and Gunn that he objected to the purchase of six-guinea rams, as he could not afford it, and he would not pay for them if he could get out of it. Witness admitted receiving a statement periodically, and had written to Dalgety’s asking them not to send any more debits as he owed them nothing. Witness instructed Englebrecht to put the 1931 wool in the shed and on no account to sell it; and he also instructed the solicitors to have it insured. The Church Property Trustees in Christchurch had actually insured the wool. Witness received an account sales for the wool, which was the first knowledge he had of its sale. Witness had arranged with the Church Property Trustees to pay them £157 for interest when the wool was sold, and they had agreed to wait till the market improved, which it did shortly after the sale of the wool. Dalgety’s had sold the wool without his knowledge or authority.

Cross-examined, witness said in reference to the 120 ewes purchased for £7B at Studholme and charged to his account, that he was pretty nearly sure they did not go to Englebrecht’s. He supposed he had paid Dalgety’s for them, but could not say why he had done so. In regard to the rams, he was prepared to pay for them if they came under his lien. Witness had not purchased 120 ewes from a man named Goodall on March 21st, 1930, and he had not given authority for their purchase for Englebrecht. Witness knew nothing of a credit by Dalgety’s of £l2 5s 2d as the proceeds of the sale of two cows sold by Englebrecht. “I don’t know anything about things that do not go through the bank,” said witness. “Unless it goes through the bank I’ve got no tally about- it.” Witness went on to state that he objected to paying for any goods supplied to Englebrecht without authority. Witness had only ordered woolpacks and twine, but there was a large amount charged on the account for goods which were supplied without permission. Had the wool not been sold it would have brought more money later.

The Magistrate tried to get a statement from witness in regard to seeing credits for the sale of cows, the wool, or the 120 lambs, but witness stated that he had no remembrance of them, although he might have got them. Plaintiff’s counsel submitted that Dalgety’s had admitted owing the amount claimed, but plaintiff had not admitted owing the amount of their account. In any case, defendants had not claimed for their amount, and therefore could not get judgment for it. The Magistrate agreed that the amounts would have to be proved, but it appeared on the evidence that defendants had treated Englebrecht as Meehan’s agent, which arrangement had never been cancelled. On the evidence before him, on the correspondence, and in view of the rather unsatisfactory evidene of plaintiff, it appeared that a business scheme existed, and that Dalgety’s were justified in selling the wool. Meehan was getting on in years, and probably his memory was becoming defective. He had evidently entered into arrangements with his first mortgagees, and had found himself in a hole. It was also evident that he had neglected to cancel the arrangements made which constituted Englebrecht his agent. Plaintiff would be non-suited on the claim, with court costs 2/-, and solictor’s fees £3 3s.