A DISPUTED CLAIM.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2161, 9 April 1908, Page 2

A DISPUTED CLAIM.

STARTLING .DEVELOPMENTS

JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF,

Tho ■adjourned caso of William Afiluvood Friar against Paul Stuart AlcColl, claim for £74 13s 3d, was heard in tho Magistrate’s Court yesterday. Tho caso .had been adjourned ill order that plaintiff might supply certain details which has boon requested. Mr Mann stated that his client had been unable to comply with this as regards dotails of tho items in the months of April and May but particulars of tho credits had been furnished. Ho calk'd William Ashwood Friar, who, in continuing bis evidence, stated that ho was unable to supply particulars of goods mentioned under the heading of goods April-Mav, 1905. Change of system of rendering accounts took placo in April 1905, by sending 'accounts along with the goods lor tho purpose of simplifying tho work. The system was found to he unsatisfactory and a revision to tho old system took place.

To Mr Coleman : Did not show particulars of items when the summons was issued becauso they were overlooked. Witness stated that the word “paid” on tho receipt produced'was written by one of Ins employees and was not his own signature. It was, he thought, signed by his son Leonard. Witness admitted that customers previously had disputed their rendered accounts. Knew Air Spencer blit did not know that ho holds receipts for amounts for which ho has not beon given credit. George Robert Moore stated that ho was draper in plaintiff’s employ for 12 years, and loft in February 100 G. Item for ISs Gd in October 1905 was supplied by witness and entered into tho Eclipso book, as lio payment was made to him. When tho word “entered” was on a docket it was meant to bo passed into tho office for entry into the ledger. No name was usually entered on the docket when the transaction avas for cash.

To Air Coleman: Did not remember any other customer named ATcColl on tho books, except the oreson t defendant. The word "entered” was written by witness on the slip regarding the account for 18s Gd. Cannot remember who got the silk at the counter.

Ida Jano Tnstin, milliner, said that she had been in charge of plaintiff’s showroom for over four years. The entry in Eclipse book, 14/12/05. shows that Airs AlcColl came and got I ho goods which wore charged io her. In all eases where cash was paid, the word “paid” was marked on the sheet. Knew defendant’s wife, who lias never made any complaint about being charged wrongfully.

To Mr Coleman: Sometimes it might happen that money would bo paid into the office without a receipt being obtained, especially if chore was a rush of business. Airs MeColl purchased a fair amount of drapery from the firm. Hiram Schofield stated that lie bad been messenger boy for plaintiff since December 1907. One of bis duties was to take out the monthly accounts. TCnew Mrs MeColl and lm<l delivered monthly accounts at her house about four times. iSome of the accounts were put under the door and others wore given to the children. Witness also stated that he delivered parcels at defendant’s house. To Air Coleman : ’The children were playing about outside when be gave them the accounts. Since the caso was last adjourned witness bad no conversation with plaintiff. Got a summons to attend as a witness and on asking plaintiff what he was to come to the Court- for was told that bo was to say if lie had taken tho bills every month to defendant’s bouse.

Ala reus Albert Neill, grocers’ assistant, employed by plaintiff, said that lie entered his sorvico early in March about three .years ago. The entry in Eclipse book of August 5 1905, was in witness’ handwriting. Initials on the bottom of tho docket may only mean that witness made up the parcel. If this had been a cash transaction “paid” would have been written on tho docket. This was the invariable custom. Unless the transaction were cash witness never added up the amount of the goods, but without exception did so when tho goods were paid for. Tho goods on the docket produced were not paid for at the time, as tho amount was not totalled up, and tho word “paid,” which appears on tho docket and does not appear on the carbon copy, was not written by him. Witness said that lio was absolutely sure of this. Item of April 4,190 G, also marked paid, was in witness’ handwriting, all except the word “paid” which lie was positive was not written by him. Witness then went through a number of other dockets and in every case denied that the word “paid,” which appeared on most of them had been written by him. If the word “paid” was marked on the docket, tho carbon copy would undoubtedly show it. Alonth]y accounts went out by the boy nad also by tho carter and were sometimes put under the string of tbe parcels. To Air Coleman: Air L. Friar was also in the grocery department and lie and also the plaintiff received money and' sometimes the bov gave receipts. On the account- of 15/6/06 marked “paid” witness cdukl not say who wrote the word and thought it was not anyone in the shop. Witness also denied any knowledge as to whose handwriting the word “paid” was on several further documents produced. On- one docket witness \\ as doubtful, and did not think the word “paid” was in bis handwriting and on another docket said that ho was inclined to think that the handwriting, was his. If a customer took_ goods out and returned next day with cash, witness took the cash direct to tho office and got a receipt.

Percival Ernest Hallam stated that lie had been in the employ of plaintiff for over two years. He gave corroborative evidence ns to the system of recording both cash and credit transactions, it was witness’ habit to total up the amount of the account. Knew Airs AlcColl and had never received any complaint as to inaccurate accounts.

To Mr .Coleman: Cash paid for goods a day or so later is taken to this office and a receipt is given. .Receipts are always given. Leonard Aslnvood Friar stated that he was plaintiff’s son and had been assisting in the grocery department lor 0 years. Ho also described the docket system in voguo and stated that it was always his custom to write the word “paid” before the leaf was torn out. In all cash transactions the amount of the account was totalled up. Unless the word “paid”, appeared on the carbon slip witness was positive that the word was not written by him. Witness went over a considerable number of dockets on which “paid” was marked, and in each ease denied that the word was in his handwriting. No complaints were ever received by witness from defendant or Mrs McColl as to anything being wrong with the accounts.

To Mr Coleman: If a customer brought back a docket a day or two later to pay for the goods, ‘the docket would bo receipted and if the doekeb was not brought back a separate receipt was given. At counsel’s request, witness wrote the word “paid” on a sheet of paper. To the Bench : Receipts would simply bo marked “paid” and no indication would be given as to who received the money.

To Mr Coleman : 'When goods wero paid lor a few days later the docket would be marked “paid” and also the original slip i u tho book. Witness could not remember a single instance where defendant liad brought tho money in To pay for goods, a few days later. A large number of documents were put in with the intention of verifying witness’ signature Continuing, witness, in reply to Sir that ho had no recollection of having heard of any

complaints from people having been I billed twico for goods. Re-examined by Air Alanir: It was not a "frequent occurrence for people to como back and pay lor goods a few days later. This concluded the case for the plaintiff and Air Coleman addressed the Court for tbs defenco, stating that ho would submit that the buffi of tho amount claimed for was incorrect. After Septcmbor, 1000, defendant, through bis wife, paid cash for practically all tho items up-to-date. Although repeatedly requested to do so, plaintiff had failed to supply details of the amounts owing previously. Counsel pointed out what lie called tho vory slovenly system of -book-keeping prevailing m the plaintiff’s establishment and emphasised the fact of a storekeeper allowing a laboring mail to run an account up to £7O without any payments on‘account being made since Juno 1900. His original intention had not been to call defendant oi Mrs .AlcColl, but lie had now decided to do so. In the meantime ho would call Joseph Spencer, -builder, who stated that lie dealt with plaintiff from February 1907 to Alay 1907 on a monthly credit system and paid maccount regularly. In Juno of the same year witness received a lira toi £1 23 for goods that were paid for. Witness took the account to tho store and said he had receipts. He then heard no more about the- matter until January 1908, when he was threatened will proceedings, bub still refused to pay. , , . , Paul Stuart AlcColl, defendant, deposed that ho commenced dealing with plaintiff in 1903. on the monthly credit system. Receipt for £o produced was a settlement of -an old account. Started a now account with plaintiff early in 1905. Towards the !>nd of 1905 wrote to plaintiff asking him to allow the amount owing to stand over, as he (witness) wanted to build a house, and that tor tjic future lie would pay cash. In the letter, witness asked plaintiff for an account of the amount due, but had never seen any account until he received the summons. Always supplied his wife with cash to purchase iho supplies. For the pastMwo veaifhad been receiving £2 15s weekly, and nrior to that £2 10s. A£s note would cover all other outstanding liabilities. Never wrote anything in any way on the dockets nor was he a party to anvone else doing so. To Mr Mann: Saw most of the monthly accounts, rendered by plaintiff. Did not know in 1905 exactly how his account stood with plaintiff At the beginning of this year probably owed 'Air McKee over £3 tor six weeks groceries /but the amouiii has since been naid. Did not dea. with Air AV. J.‘Cox or try to borrow anv money from him. Dorothy AlcColl. wife of tho defendant, said- that receipts were kept at her house as they were received from plaintiff. Never wrote the word “paid” on any of the dockets nor did she connive a t anyone fraudulently tampering with them. Ue.pally transacted business at- plaintiff’s store with Mr Neill. Startev dealing with plaintiff in 1902 and go’ monthly credit up to about. four years ago. Something was owing a. the end of 1904 and they also ran m account with -plaintiff from February 1005 up to about (September or October. From this onward witness paid -cash for everything. V. 1906-7* all goods obtained were pan for Tim monev was paid by cash mostly at the time the goods were obtained, but occasionally it woulc be a day or two later. Did not receive the amount of butter cl a line' for by plaintiff. Also used to gebutter from the country and coulo not possibly have used the amount o lmtter represented on the accounts The oilcloth claimed for on June 23rd was not- bought until July. AVit-iiK paid for it to plaintiff personally, bil did not get -a receipt. .Never on any occasion bought a suit from plain tiff at 18s Gd. To Air Alaiiu : Have no recollection of any amount' being owing at tilt end of 1904 or. had no recollection of asking, plaintiff to let any amount stand over. On July 29th 1905, .witness received a receipt for £o ly s Un that occasion did not pay plaintiff £G. Ha-d seen Air Neill repeatedly tear the top sheet- off the docker before he wrote “paid” on it when he was told that witness was going to pay cash. Air Neill was accustomed just to add up the arnouut, aud witness would' pay tho amount without question. At the end of 1904 vuness thought that about £8 was owing to plaintiff. AVliilo paying cash did not expect- to receive monthly accounts and lias never received them iu any way. Witness thought thai ill December about £2O was owing,bu. got no account for it. Plaintiff hau never called at witness’ house between October aud January. Nevei saw him tliero and had never invited him inside. Plaintiff never spoke t-o witness about tho account- before the summons was received. Had never told plaintiff that defendant did not know the amount of th© account. Did not go to Air Alann’s office on January 18th and the signature on the document (produced) was not that of witness’. After a question from tho Bench, witness was positive that she had not written th© signature on the document and had not been in the solicitor’s office on the day mentioned. Witness, whe was asked to write her signature aL this stage, still persisted in her denial, although Air Alanu stated that no professionally witnessed the signature. After receiving the summons witness stated that she went- to All Mann’s offico and had a conversation with him, but was only in tbe office on ono occasion and did uoi go there between tho 19th and 27tli days of January. Witness went to seo plaintiff after receipt of tho summons and told him that she had paid for all the items that were mentioned and had the receipts. Plaintiff told her to bring them down. Witness stated that on ono occasion she was billed for an account- by Air Crawford, bookseller, but she had the receipt, and the matter was settled. Also had an account- in the same way from tbe Turauganui Lodge. Had been taking milk from a man named -File, but had now ceased, but a son of Air File’s called to collect money and found that theamount hud previously been paid and witness held a receipt. This receipt was disputed and the amount lias since been paid. Tho amount was iiaid a second time becauso File took tho receipt borne and never returned it. lie-examined bv Air. Coleman :AVitnrss positively stated that- she signed nothing in Air Alann’s office on the occasion sho was there.

In. reply to further questions by both Mr Coleman ami His Worship, witness vehemently denied that she had written anything or signed anything in Mr Mann’s office.

Mr Mann stated that ho had witnessed the signature of -Mrs McColl in his own office on tho day in question.

His Worship after comparing the signatures written in Court by Mrs McColl with the signature on the document, said that the position was becoming very grave indeed. Ho had, no doubt that tho signatures were, identical, and.said that it- was the most extraordinary caso which he had ever heard.

In reply to a question His Worship said that he thought on tho whole it would be bettor to have the testimony of Mr Mann, who, after having been sworn, stated that, lie was plaintiff’s solicitor. Early in January plaintiff spoke about, liis claim v-ics. defendant. During the week ending January 18, plaintiff informed witness that an arrangement had been made for defendant to give a mortgage over liis house and land. On the Thursday or Friday following, plaintiff telephoned witness and said that defendant would bo down on Saturday to execute tho document. Defendant, did not arrive on Saturday 18th but Mrs McColl did, and said that- her husband objected to signing tho mortgage because the .ana was not his to mortgage. Witness said that Mrs McColl had said 011 that occasion that her father was expected during the following week and sho hoped and exneoted that he would pay £2O or £l3O off the plainLtr s account. With a wish to pro-

tcct his client-, witness drew up the r • memorandum (produced) and saw Mrs AlcColl sign it, aud ho added, : V : at th© time: Witness —E. H. Alaun, solicitor, Gisborne. Airs AlcColl call- ' ii2® ai l l during tho same month. Iho document referred to as havL Ar'rv!p UG(I 011 this occasion hy a,„ 6 , ’ " as a Promise to pay die money on a cortuiu date and a pledge not, to dispose of tho property in tho meantime ■ Addressing tho Court for tho dolOiicc, Air Coleman said that the caso nad become remarkably grave owinu :o tho position taken up by Airs Al<> Coll, it was undoubtedly tho most H extraordinary case in his experience •’lie only possible explanation ho J -ould offer was that tho witness ei-->‘ “her at that time or at presont was suffering from hallucination. It bure,y could not -bo a deliberate falso.100(1.

Mr. Alann spoke on the main features of the ease, and said that tho testimony bad been so much shaken chat it was not necessary for him to .peak at any length. His Worship, in giving judgment, laid that it was a most painful case, tml lie had no doubt that Airs AlcColl iad given faLse evidence. Ho was perfectly satisfied that sho had been .n Air Ala mi’s office and had signed -lie documents producer! by Mr Alann. IVlien a woman would give false evidence in one particular, she would give it in another. Ho was also satis•ied that defendant had given his .-vidcncc in a perfectly straightforward niannor and had stated all that no know of the .matter. Judgment would bo for tho plaintiff for the amount claimed, lees credits which eft the amount at £73 10s 3d with 32 12s costs, entering plaint £l, eoicitors’ fee £3 l-ls and witnesses’ expenses £1 19s 6d.