CLAIM FOR GRAZING FEES

Chronicle (Levin), 17 January 1948, Page 4

CLAIM FOR GRAZING FEES

CHEQUE USED AS EVIDENCE IN LEVIN COURT Following on ax.i order 'for - the production of a cheque for his per.usal, Mr. A. M. Goulding, S.M., yesterday proceeded in' the Magist'rate's Court, Levin, with a civil case involVing a claim of £39 ,11s 6d for - the grazing of a racehorse, Gypsy Lass. - . Defendant was George Maurice Baird, racehorse owner of Hawke'S Bay, an'd he was defending a claim lodged by Brian Leslie Everton, wholesale butcher, of Levin. Mr. N. M. Thomson appeared for Everton, while Baird was represented by Mr. S. H. Philip. . ^ _ At the December sitting of the court, conflieting evidence arose as to the payment'-of the cheque as part of the grazing fees. Defendant claimed that he had paid £10 of the fees by cheque to plaintiff's son, Graham Everton, who stated 'that he had passed it on to his father, Leslie Brian Everton. The father denied its re.ceipt. The original cheque, which was recovered .from the bank and produced in court by Mr. Philip, showed that it h'ad been cashed thrnugh a business .account on July 24. Mr. Thomson said that although Graham Everton had said in evidence that he ha'd handed the cheque to his father, he would try to prove that Graham had cashed it in Wellington. John Miller Cardno, manager of'a Wellington butchery, said in evidence that he had cashed a cheque for Graham Everton on July 24. He and Brian Leslie Everton were partners in the business. Cardno p^oduced hi's bank book in court, which showed a 'deposit of £10 by'a cheque signed by Baird and paid into the bank on July 24. 'Questioned by Mr. Philip, Cardno said that he did not cash many cheques for Graham Everton. Mr. Goulding: Is it a common thing to cash cheques for people in your business? — Yes. This turn of events had put his witness ' in an awkward position, said Mr. Philip. Naturally he denied the allegation. Many times he had cashed cheques at Cardno's for his father. He could not see how Cardno could , rememher the particular cheque so clearly. . In the question of agents, it was clear that Graham Everton was an agent for someone, contended Mr. Thomson. However, the question was, who was he agent for? If it was Baird who . had approached Graham Everton and asked him to make arrangements for the grazing of the horse on plaintiff's property. Therefore, Baird constituted Graham Everton as an

agent throughout. Mr. Philip submitted that Graham Everton was his father's sagent, and fraud, if any existed between father and son, did not affect any monies paid by Baird. to plaintiff or his son. , Summing up, Mr. Goulding said that he could not allow Everton to recover from Baird the £10 paid bycheque. Graham Everton could be r.egarded as a proper agent for his father. He entered judgment for plaintiff for a further £16 8s. Costs amounting to £5 18s 8d were also allowed.