CYCLE-DEALERS’ DISPUTE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2311, 2 October 1908, Page 2

CYCLE-DEALERS’ DISPUTE.

ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT.

At the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr. W. A. Barton, S.M., W. J. Barlow (Mr. G .H. Lysnar) proceeded against Joseph Roland (Mr. Stock) to recover £l5O damages for breach of covenant 1 11 connection with the sale of a business, for not delivering goods sold, and for work and labor done. Mr. Lvsnar outlined the case for the plaintiff, and! called— Peter Mortenson, who said that lie negotiated for the sale of defendant’s property to plaintiff. The stock was to be sold for a lump sum, and he did not think a schedule was necessary. He was present when ,the balance of die consideration money was paid over and noticed that the stock appeared 'o bj (' pletcd. About May 17th he spw defendant in a shop in one of the side streets, and defendant appeared to be in occupation, as he was working. Defendant’s son was also working in the shop, which contained guns and bicycles, etc. He (witness) went to the shop to pay an account. To Mr. Stock: Defendant was filing the bolt of a motor-car when witness saw him in the shop. He did not know if the shop was one belonging to defendant’s son. Defendant carried oil the old business until 17th May. At the time of the completion of the sale an allowance was made to plaintiff for goods sold up to the time of completion. William John Barlow, plaintiff,gave evidence of the purchase of defendant’s business. When he bought the place defendant told him that the whole of the backyard anil the shed thereon would be his property. This eventually proved not to be so, and an allowance of £4O was made. Witness took an inventory of the stock on February 27th, arid when the pairchase money was finally paid over a further allowance of £4 was made on account- of a second-hand bicycle which had been sold in the meantime. An agreement was signed prohibiting defendant from entering into business within 20 miles of Gisborne. On going round the stock a case of goods was mentioned at £4B 10s, and defendant refused to produce the invoice. Witness knew that defendant was proprietor of another shop in Bright Street after March 17 and had liis name at the door. Witness went into the shop and saw two bicycles and two bicycle lamps. On being remonstrated with for breaking the agreement, defendant denied having done so. To the Bench: He made an inventory of the stock in the defendant’s presence, and the list (produced) was made by him for liis own guidance. To Mr. Stock: Some cf tlio items for which lie claimed might possibly 7 have been sold before he bought- the •business. He discovered the items were missing on the second day of the occupation. Ho gave defendant two promissory notes, one of which was destroyed, and the other, for £3B 10s 6d, over a transaction with Reynolds and Co., Wellington. Ho paid the p.n. to Roland, because lie liad not discovered all tlio items _ that were missing at the time lie did so. He stopped payment of tlio cheque for the business because Roland came and took the invoice for Reynolds’ goods and a box of taps out of liis private drawer. Nothing was ever said to him about stocks, and dies alul other articles wore not to be included in the sale of the business. He bought the business as it stood with everything in the shop. Thomas George Lawless,, estate agent, said that defendant put liis business into his (witness’) hands for sale.

Mr Lysnar was proceeding to examine the witness when it was found that his evidenco was not relevant to the case.

Robert Boag, engine-driver, said lie bought i;i■ bicycle from the defendant in August for £4 10s. To Mr. Stock: Defendant told him the machine was his own private property, and he wanted to sell it, as he was leaving for Opotiki. Herbert F. Gush, cycle dealer, stated that early in May defendant 'handed him two bicycle lamps to sell, which lie did, one for 12s 6d and the other for the same amount. About a month ago defendant brought a bicycle to the shop and said lie was going to sell it. Dr. Schumacher said that in February last his motor-car was at defendant’s garage for repairs, and some time early in March. At a subsequent interview defendant asked witness to give his son bis custom. To Mr Stock: Defendant did not say that lie was supporting liis son in the business. Wm. J. N. Attwood said that defendant asked him in March to sell a dozen bicycle lamps for him. Witness sold three, and defendant took the balance away again about a month ago. To Mr. Stock: Two of the lamps lie sold for 9s 6d and one for 15s. He did not know where t-lic lamps had come from. William Roland, motor mechanic, said that lie was working on his own account and not in conjunction with bis father. Until a week ago he had no shop in town, and had done no work in his father’s shop. Although he had repaired several cars on the roadway on the roadside opposite his father’s shop. To Mr. Stock: His father had not in any way assisted him in his business since March last. When his father sold' out the business, he went into the. gunsmit'hing business in Blight Street. A number of items in the claim were bis father’s private drawer at the time of the sale, but' Ills father told Mr. Barlow that they were not for sale. After further examination and reexamination by Mr. Lysnar, tlio evidence for the plaintiff was closed, and Mr. Lysnar as'ked leave to call evidence in rebuttal of that given by Roland. Mr. Stock strongly objected, stating that it was contradictory to ail the laws of evidence that rebutting evidence should be called to contradict plaintiff’s own witness. His Worship considered that- lie could not allow the desired evidence to be called, as lie could not even give permission for Roland to be treated as a hostile witness. Mr. Stock opened the case for the defendant at length, but as the hour was late the case was adjourned until 11 a.m. this morning.