MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 166, 9 April 1920, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

TWICE RECEIPTED ACCOUNT

CLAIM FOR A REFUND SUCCEEDS

( - !A. sharp; conflict-of evidence, was'disclosed in the .hearing of a civil action an the Magistrate's Court Mfore Mr. P., I.- Hollings, S;M., yesterday; - .WilliamMansfield, monumental jnason, tought to recover from the 'Now Zealand' Express Company a refund of .the.sum of. ,£2 ss. balance of charges on two cases of shipped through .the defendant, company from Sydney. • ' Mr. Ev- P, Bunny appeared for tho plaintiff and Mr. JVC. Morrison defended. ■ ■~ ; . The- plaintiff's story was that he bad Mid tho amount in question twice over. On- December -2 lie culled at tho company's, office,, paid. the account, and got a receipt (produced). Later lie .was again, billed .by . the company for ... the ■amount now in dispute. j ? ;ctting that 'ho had already discharged r liability, ho again paid the account, .j the company and got another receipt (produced). Some fe,w days' later, he came, across the first receipt for 42 ss. Gd., and he accordingly approached %tho company for a refund of the second payment. This the company refused to make. Tin defence was that (he' plaintiff (lid not pay the account twice over. It *as ••alleged that the. first receipt, duly.'stii'mpr. Ed anil signed, iii anticipation of • payment, was handed by the chief clerk to the carrier delivering .the goods.'. The latter, .was'to collect the account after delivery of,the goods.' On'returning' to the office, .'the .carrier reported that, he . liad handed the receipt, to Mr. Maris-, 'field's son, and that "the son, retaining the receipt, had remarked that lie would jioi pay the account till he had consulted his father, as ho believed'it liad <already been settled. ■ "Unfortunately the' carrier,: who was perfectly trustworthy, ha-.l 1 shortly .-afterwards"-left ■t'lie company's employ and- could not now: be' traced.' ' ' His Worship jjave judgment for plaint tilf for the amount. elaimed,' together ■with costs. Tho Magistrate added that personally he could not understand a . business firm issuing receipts'-without first obtaining payment'. If- lie discredited the plaintiff's statement he would have to believe'.that' plaintiff had delib?rately. committed perjury . .for Ih'e sake of a' paltry sum. He was-not pre-' pared to eiitertain that supposition, v-' OTHfifcASES. ' • Judgment'forplaintiff l>v default was given by Mr. Hollings,in' the following undefended i case: Public Trustee y.' George James ■ Beaid, ,£6 and costs .£1 3s Gd. ; . ' ' -; - ■ ;' ' Tn a judgment' summons case H. Bates) who did not appear, was ordered to pay A. Cotton the' sum of '.filG 14s;' pd, \bj. • May 8 or undergo seven' days' imprisonment. •