LIABILITY TO PAY

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 10, Issue 76, 22 January 1947, Page 5

LIABILITY TO PAY

A TWO-YEAR-OLD DEBT

PLAINTIFF’S ACTION FAILS

An unusually involved case in which plaintiff sought to en force liability for payment of a debt contracted for internment costs incurred two years ago occupied the Whakatane Magis-

trate’s Court yesterday. Mr E. L,

Walton was on the bench

The parties concerned were W. Jarrett and Son (Mr R. F. Smith) and Messrs. G. Matchett and R. Warbrick (Mr Suckling). The claim involved the sum of £lB which plaintiff declared was owing for services rendered at the time of the death of a young man Thomas Warbrick who had been employed by Matchett on his farm. Plaintiff claimed that both defendants came into his office contracted for his services and paid over the sum of £5 as deposit. He had sent his account on to the father of the deceased, but had had mo satisfaction and had therefore forwarded it on to the person with whom he had originally dealt with —Mr Matchett. The liability was denied and the amount was still outstanding. To Mr Suckling plaintiff declared that the cheque had definitely been drawn by Matchett and paid over as deposit. The defence was that neither defendants were actually involved. Matchett had merely driven Warbrick in to see the plaintiff regarding the undertaking work, and had been present only for part of the interview. Further he had never paid over any cheque to plaintiff but had merely paid a balance of £5 owing the deceased as part purchase price on a horse, to Warbrick who was a cousin, and who had . in turn handed it to Mr Jarrett to offset immediate costs.

George Matchett gave full evidence, maintaining that the father of the deceased was the person directly responsible, and he had already been to Whakatane and assured him (Matchett) that the whole matter was settled.

The Magistrate said that he was satisfied with the case as, far as it went. It was obvious that the plaintiff should sue the two Warbricks (cousin and father of the deceased), and not Matchett who was not involved in any way. The case would be dismissed with costs allowable to defendants.