Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume IX, Issue 109, 14 April 1888, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court

Thursday, Apbil 12, 1888. (Before B. Ward, Esqr, 8.M.) (Concluded from our last issue.) Norman and Jackman v. New Plymouth Sash and Door Factory. —Claim £86 13s 2d. Mr Prior for plaintiff, and Mr Goodbehere for defendant. £14 12a 9d had been paid into Court. From the opening statement of council it appeared that an account had beea stated between the parties and the balance arrived at, which account was produced. James Norman, carter and contractiactor, deposed : A claim against the ' Company had been made out by Mr Prior for the balance due to his firm ; the balance arrived at was £479 19s 6d ; he was afterwards asked to go to New Plymouth to measure up timber and arrive at a settlement ; on die Bth instant went to New Plymouth and saw the manager, Mr Snowball, who told him there waa a deficiency of 5000 feet of timber. Mr Goodbehere stated he admitted the statement of account bnt contended it was erroneous. It would be a mere waste of time to go into the evidence now produced. A letter from defendant to plaintiff was read in which the amount claimed was admitted. Mr Goodbehere, for the define*, quoted Boseoe on evidence to show errors in aocount could be corrected after a statement of acceunt had been arrived at between the parties. He would prove the statement of accounts contained an error. The defendant firm h*d given plaintiff credit for the the timber ordered, and not the amount actually supplied. Another account was made out showing the actual amount of timber received according to the railway ticket*. Edward Snowball, work* manager | for defendant company, deposed : Had nothing to do with the books of the company ; Mr Norman called on him on the 16th of February at New Plymonth ; he asked for money, could not give it to him as Mr Tribe was away ; told him he would make up the aocount as near as he (witness) could ; took the orders as sent for the quantities ; made up a balance sheet, and told him he would get him a cheque for £200, and did so ; gave Norman a copy of the account; mentioned several items which had to go against Norman, but which did not appear in the account; on the return of Mr Tribe several errors in the account were pointed out; witness came to Feilding and saw Mr Norman, showed him the amended account, he«aid " it wouldn't do" ,Jand told witness he would have to sue. Cross-examined by Mr Prior : Had had a very great deal of tiouble with Mr Norman which might account f« r the number of letters written; the account was made out on the basis that plaintiffs were to be paid for theamount of timber used in the wharf. By the Court : About 24,000 feet of the timber was condemned. E. H. Tribe deposed : Was seer©tary of the Bash and Door Company ; Mr Snowball showed him a certain account, produced ; took it to be merely a memo, not a statement of account ; on going through it found there was an error, as the account gave credit for the order givey, no* for the timber as actually received ~^ from the tickets supplied ;by plaintiff^ to the company ; obtained a list from, I the contractor of the wharf giving thet£ amount of condemned timber, which was debited to Norman and Jackman. - ■ J. Norman, recalled, deposed : Waa anxious to come te a settlement ; made a statement as to his interviews with Mr Snowball in Taranaki an&fßuldinff By Mr Goodbehere . Was prepared to make a sacrifice in order to make a settlement. Mr Snowball recalled, deposed: Had told Norman the mode adopted would be the simplest ; did not look at it as a final settlement; could not do so unless Mr Phillip consented. His Worship said that as a jury he found the statement of account was erroneous, and said that the case waa an important one to both parties. He was inclined to Mr Snowball did represent the defendant company. Had Tribe been there he would ltav» made out the account, what Snowball did was the act of the Company. He thought the parties agreed to the basis of the settlement. He was unable to find the parties had contracted themselves out of their power to correct errors. There were errors on both v sides which the parties oould correct. He would remark the ease could be settled by arbitration if a nonsuit were entered. Plaintiffs were nonsuited, no order for costs was made. Louis Stewart v. Thomas Gilbert.— Claim £43 13s 9d. Mr Prior for plaintiff, and Mr Stake for the defendant. Thomas Gilbert v. Louis Stewart— Claim £2» lie 3d. These cases were heard together. The plaintiff, Hugh Mangham, Thos. Stewart, Mrs Stewart, j.unr., and John Goodin gave evidence in support of plaintiff's claim. The defendant, his wife, W. Scarrow, C. Edwards, H. Pyrce-Jones, and E. Gilbert gave evidence, which was of a contradictory h racter. His Worship considered the cases should not have been brought into Court. Judgment for defendants in each case, without costs. W. Stevens v. L. Kella.— Claim £4 15s. Mr Prior for plaintiff, and Mr Sandilands for defendant. The defendant objected to the olothes, as he stated they did not fit. The plaintiff said there was only a small alteration to be made when first tried on, which was duly made. The suit being made for a very huge man was of bo use to him, and the material would be wasted. Plaintiff nonsuited, without costs. Charles Henry v. Mrs W. G. IKckion—Claim £\ \\ a 6d. Defendant laid «b& had paid the claim. Judgment for plaintiff and costs 6s. toAObujithenroae. ;. *