A CLAIM FOR CARTAGE PAILS

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 33, 3 November 1920, Page 2

A CLAIM FOR CARTAGE PAILS

PLAINTIFF

'In-the- Magistrate's." Court yesterday C. Nioleen, trading as C. Nielsen, •and Co. of cartage contractors, claimed from Blundell Bros, the sum of £31- 15s. for cartage of 211 rolls-of >per : ami 'labour';for ; delivery. iiie case whs heard-by-Mr. J. S. Evans, S.M. Mr. I>. S'.. Smith appeared lor theplaintiff- and Mr M. Myers for Blundell For the defendants Mr. Myers oxplaifjed that tho claim was being resisted, not because,of tho amount of money involved, but in the interests of coinniercial morality. ' The. facts were that Blundell' Bros, had a tofW-ot-M----lin's Building-from .the iilaintiff; they had a tenancy, until-.-the- end of 191», and' they had the option to continue the tenancy for another year 'or 'for au iii'defmito period subject to three wonti* notice. Nielsen's tried to -foroo Blundcllßros. out because they wanted to make more money. This was m-iep-tembcr; UOW;.;: 'TlnTdefendants -re used Ito quit because the plaintiffs -had. no right to give any such notice, and Blun-. dell Bros, intended to exercise ■'■their option to contimio until the end of 1920. " BKhdeirßim did not desire to give up the storage because they could not-tell -from-month-to mouth what quantity of paper,.would be coming torward ■ The commercial conditions in Wellington were such that storage.space was difficult to. obtain.- ■• On May 18 a representative of Nielsen and Co. called upon Blundell Bros, and said that if ■ Blundell Bros, would relinquish the speco Tu the store Nielsen and Co. would • deliver the paper to -another store free •of charge;; but Blundell Bros, did not want to get. rid of the storage .and -made a counter-proposal to reduce the space. In August,, when the stock of paper was running low; Blundell Bros, were disposed to vncate the premises', and asked Nielsen if the offer .of free delivery was • still open. It was alleged by' Mr. Myers that this offer was stated to be still open, but this was denied bv the plaintiff.. ........ . After hearing the evidence tho Magistrate' said tho '. greater advantage .was witli tho plaintiff-to secure the etoriiKO than it was to Blundell Bros, to retain it. Tho plaintiff was nonsuited, and the defendants wero allowed. the usual costs.