"FIDDLESTICKS"

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 56, 3 September 1926, Page 12

"FIDDLESTICKS"

* CLATM FOR GOODS SUPPLIED MAGISTRATE DISBELIEVES DEFENDANT. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) FEILDING, 2nd September. A case arising out of a dispute over wages between a saddler and his agent was heard in Feilding Magistrate's Court to-day before Mr. J. G. Hewitt, S.M. W. ' Christensen, saddler, of Feilding, claimed £21 7s from Richard Lynch, of Ashhurst, Tor goods supplied. Defendant counter-claimed for i'ol 14s 8d for wages, which, he alleged, the plaintiff had agreed to pay. Mr. Elliott appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Peterson (Palmerston North) for defendant. Plaintiff stated that he had supplied the defendant with £36 worth of goods on the understanding that tho defendant was to get 10 per cent, commission on all goods sold, and on repair work secured. Wages were not mentioned. After about throe weeks had passed tho plaintifE had hoard no more from the defendant, so he went to the latter's shop at Ashhurst an.d found his goods in the shop window. Ho took possession of them, and the defendant said that ho would pay by instalments for the articles sold. To Mr. Peterson, witness stated that negotiations for selling arrangements had been started by Lynch, who had asked for a job. Richard Lynch, the defendant, contradicted this statement, and said that he had been travelling the district selling various goods and Christenson had asked him to sell his goods at £2 10s per week and 10 per cent, commission. In addition, he had taken the plaintiff's saddlery and offered it for sale, but' did not sell much as the price of it was too high. Ho had often asked Christenson for wages, but the latter had always put him off with some excuse. The Magistrate here pointed out that tho defendant had written several letters to the plaintiff, but had never mentioned wages in them. The Magistrate asked why. Tho defendant said that he had heard that the plaintiff was hard up and had not liked to bother him for wages. When writing he had s.nt him £1 of his own money to help him along. "You sent him £1 when you say ho owed you £51 for wages." asked tho Magistrate. "I did," stated witness. "Very considerate of you," commented the Magistrate. Mr. Hewitt held that the plaintiff's version of the proceedings between the two parties was the most common-sense one, and classed the defendant's story as "fiddlesticks." Judgment, he said, would be for the plaintiff, with costs at £6 16s, and the counter-claim would be dismissed. The defendant wouM have to account for the goods ho had taken, and he would then bo entitled to commission.