A DRAPERY CLAIM.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2207, 3 June 1908, Page 1

A DRAPERY CLAIM.

NEILL V. SYKES. The caso'of Amelia Catherine Neill v. Walter James Sykes, claim for £56 Is lOd for damage alleged to havo been done to plaintiff’s goods through water overflowing from deiendafit’s surgery upstairs, was again liefore Mr. W. A. Barton, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning. His Worship Ibid previously found against the defendant oil tho question of negligence, and the question at issue on tin's occasion was the amount of damages. Mr. ’l’. A. Coleman represented tho plaintiff, and Mr. 11. J. Finn appeared for the defendant. Alfred T. Hookey, local manager for Messrs Arch. Clark and Co., said that he made an inspection oi' the plaintHUs stock on February 18th. Mr. Geo. Miller, on behalf of tho defendant, accompanied witness. They wont very carefully through tlio damaged goods, and estimated tlio loss at £56. This they both considered to he a fair estimate .

To Mr. Finn: Mr. Miller’s partner entered tho items in a hook, and witness thought lie still had that book. The plaintiff had told him that defendant had offered to tako tlio damaged goods at invoico prices, and lie was aware that plaintiff had refused tills offer. Ho hud not had much experience" of salvage sales, and could not say. w-liat-Hm-damaged goods had realised. 1 Plaintiff, giving evidence, said that her damage for loss of trade was estimated at from £6O to £BO per week, including rent, assistants’ salaries, etc. _ln consequence of the damaged sustained, 1 she was compelled to close her shop, find lmd been requested to so by a letter from defendant’s solicitor. This letter she showed To her assistants, and also to Mr. Hookey. She thought £2O was a fair estimate of the amount of loss she had sustained during tlio four days. To Mr. Finn: She had first estimated tho damage at £SOO, as she had thought it worse than it really was. She’ had intended to hold tlio defendant liable. The letter produced was a copv of the letter she had received, but she had a doubt about the last clause in it. Tlio first tiling that was done after the letter was received was that Messrs Hookey and Miller valued the damaged goods. Witness considered £5 per day a reasonable amount for loss of trade. Tlio shop was not open for tlie sale of goods during the four days for which she claimed loss of trade. Witness did not think she had received the letter before tho goods were valued, and did not remember Mr. Miller tolling her there was no occasion to close her shop. She did not remember selling goods to Mrs. Rogers on tho Monday afternoon, or seeing her in the shop. Witness preferred, to sell the damaged goods herself rather than hand them over to defendant at invoice prices. All goods were marked at both cost and selling prices, with witness’ own private mark. Witness could not say at what price the damaged goods were sold. % To Mr. Coleman: All the_ damaged goods were'not sold, and witness did not . think there was much chance of disposing of them. For the defence, Mr. Finn said that ho projxised to call soveral witnesses, He had given notice to.produce the invoice prices, and also evidence of the prices for which tho goods had been since sold. He would call witnesses to prove that the shop was open on each of the four days. George Miller, auctioneer, stated that he was asked to get tho invoice prices of the damaged goods. Ho went to plaintiff’s shop for the invoices. and offered, on behalf of defendant, to take over tho damaged stock at invoice prices. Plaintiff - refused this offer. .When witness went to the shop it was open, and goods were on view at the entrance. Witness and Mr. Hookey valued the damaged goods. Witness returned to tlie shop after 2 p.m., 1 and saw Mr. and Mrs. . Rogers ill the shop. He (witness) had long experience of the drapery business, and the general result of salvage sales was that they were successful. He. had been told by plaintiff that she had instructions to closo tho shop and not sell tho damaged goods. The damaged goods were catalogued, and tho assessors estimated tho loss on each article. The back portion of tho shop and part of the left-hand side wero damaged. Witness did not consider that there was any occasion to shut the shop for the sale of goods. It took all day to take the amount of damage, and, to witness’ knowledge, tho shop was shut all tho time.

To Mr. Coleman: In witness’ opinion, tlio goods on tlie door wero exposed for sale. Witness agreed with Mr. Hookey as' to tho amount of damage. Re-examined by Mr .Finn: Ho had no authority_ from Mr. Sykes to agree as to the price.

Jessie Marguerite Rogers, wife of Andrew Rogers, jeweller, stated that she was in plaintiff’s shop on Monday, February 17. The door was shut, as it was the lunch hour when witness went to the shop. Plaintiff served her wtli some. goods, the door being opened by one of plaintiff’s assistants. Witness asked plaintiff what caused tho damage, and was told that water had come through from tho rooms upstairs. Further conversation took place, during which plaintiff said slio would do all right out of a salvage sale. Plaintiff told witness that the water had only como down one side of tho shop. The valuers came into the shop while witness was there, and plaintiff closed the door. Mr. Miller, one of tho valuers, said that he thought it was not necessary to closo the door. On the following Thursday morning, _ witness passed the shop, and noticed that it was open, apparently for business. To Mr. Coleman: She was only in the. shop for fifteen or twenty minutes, and during that tirno she saw no other customers in tho shop. ’This was all tlie. evidence called, and His Worship intimated that he would give his decision on Thursday morning.