MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXXVI, Issue 13339, 30 March 1911, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Tire -sittings of {ho Magistrate’s . Court ■were continued, before .Sir-W,,Kerr, S.M., yesterday, after we went, to press, WANGANUI CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY v. PENHALL. Tliis was a claim for £4 4s lOd for aliened shortage of cash. , Mr Mackay appeared for the society, and Mr Cohen for the defendant. Mr Mackay, in outlining the case, said that the business done was purely efish. and there was an arrangement that s if any of the drivers gave credit for bread the drivers were responsible for the mauont drivers were responsible for the amount. When onyonc joined he was advanced. £2 10s for change,, etc. Penhall was always short, and when he loft lie was £1 14s lOd short, in addition to. tho £2 10s. Since the summons was issued 3s had oeen collected, making the claim .£4 Is lOd. It was not inferred that Psnhall was dishonest, blit ho had incurred debts to, tho. so'ciety for which he was liable. Evidence for. the plaintiff society was given by S. O. Snow (manager), Anna Aranburn, and Thomas Thomson (foreman baker) - The defendant (Frank Penhall) denied tl;at when he : undertook the duties of driver he was told to give no. credit or he would have to ha responsible. Mention was made of three days’ credit, butjio understood that he was allowed to give customers three ddys’ credit, not that he himself was to be allowed three days. The .Magistrate said .that the evidence was ".unsatisfactory. The lad said he did understand that Tie, was not to give credit, hut. his cross-examination showed that he was somewhat confused. However, from tho facts,' he mtist hold that defendant did know 1 of the arrangement. Judgment, would be given for plaintiff for £4 Is lOd, with costs £1 3s. Defendant would bo able to. collect the money due by the customers. ■The S.-.M. said he could not sea his way to allow a solicitor’s fee, as he considered that tlie society’s methods of business were loose. They should have something in writing, or they would bo liable to ‘got into a tangle and be involved in litigation. SHELLY v. BARRETT. This case was continued at. the S.M. Court this morning.