NEIPER V. GARDS.

Dunstan Times, Issue 1287, 29 October 1886, Page 3

NEIPER V. GARDS.

We learn that the case of Neiper v. Cards, which was set down for hearing at the Supreme Court, Dunedin, for Thursday, 23th inst., has been settled out of Court. Plaintiff, who is a carrier residing at Alexandra, sued for the sum of L 127 13s 81 (with interest), balance said to be due to him for cartage of goods and timber for defendant, at the rate of L 3 for 39 tons, and L 4 for 29[ tons, being the current rates of cartage. Defendant in his statement cf defence, stated that a specific contract between ’plaintiff and himself had been entered into, by which it waa agreed that Neiper should do all the carting, and should be paid at the rate of L? per ton, and should he paid for the timber carried only on producing the weighbridge tickets for the' 1 same. Defendant algo stated that he had performed his part of the contract, and had employed no one but Neiper ; but the latter had always neglected and refused to furnish the weighbridge tickets. Ds« fendant was prepared to admit some work had been done, and was ready and willing to pay the_ balance found duo on Neiper fulfilling his agreement and furnishing proper accounts. The matter has now been settled by Cards paying LOO (being a reduction of L 37 10s on the amount claimed), without interest and without costs.

The agreement set up by defendant an to the production of weighbridge tickets appears to us a most reasonable one, and the only way in which persona having timber carried for them can protect themselves from over charges. r,, he timber is sold by the foot, its freight on the railway is charged by measurement, bat the carriers always charge for it by the ton. If no weighbridge tickets are produced the importer has no check whatever on the actual weight carried. As Garde admitted an amount to be duo it is difficult to see why plaintiff should have brought this action in the Supreme Court instead of suing for the amount really in dispute in the Resident Magistrate's Court, ■which has jurisdiction np to LIOO. The latter course would have saved the heavy outlay of witnesses and parties expenses in attending a Punedin court, as syell as the expenses of employing Unnedin agents, retaining counsel, etc. The choice of courts probably now no one regrets more than the plaintiff.