CYCLE-DEALERS’ DISPUTE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2312, 3 October 1908, Page 3

CYCLE-DEALERS’ DISPUTE.

THE HEARING RESUMED.

At tho Magistrate’s Court yesterday 'morning hearing was continued in the case of AV. J. Barlow v. Jas. Roland, claim for alleged broach of covenant, ole. Jas. Roland said that tho preliminaries of tho salo wore arranged by tho witness Mortenson. Ho did not accompany 7 Barlow to make an inventory of the stock and Barlow took some notes in a pocket-book. Ho was carrying on businoss until March 17 when tho final payment of the business was made. A deduction was made from tho payment on account of some ground and for goods sold up to March 17. Ho got -a consignment of half a gross of lamps bo-, foro Christmas and nearly all had boon sold boforo Barlow bought tlio business, tho remainder being handed to Barlow. A,ftor relinquishing bum ness lie started again as a gunsmith •and locksmith, and the only 7 tiling ho dill in connection with motors was fitting two lamps on Air Clay-ton’s car. Ho had not- in any way assisted his son in his business in Opotiki, where he was now residing. The lamps lie had 6okl lie had brought back from Tonga with him, and they had been in his house not in his shop. AVit-h tho exception of the salo of these seven lamps ho -had not ongaged in the business in any way. Mr Barlow never complained at any time that goods wero missing from the shop, nor did 'ho ever make any claim regarding missing goods. AVitness thou went through tho various items claimed for and contended that, with the exception of one or two of thorn, all tho items wore either in tho shop when plaintiff took possession or wore allowed for in tho settlement. Regarding tho stocks and dies, which wero ill witness’ private drawer, ho told o’.aintiff specially that they wore not for sale. AATtness' was cross-examined at length by Mr Lysnar regarding the itmes in the claim ,ancl his books wero produced to show how tho amount allowed for the salo of goods at- the time of the settlement was made out. He denied having disposed of any goods without allowing plaintiff credit for them. Stephen AVhiteliead, cycle mechanic, was in defendant’s employ when plaintiff took over the business. At that time defendant said that the tools in his private drawer were not for sale, and plaintiff said that he did not blame defendant for no’c selling liis own tools. This concluded the evidence, and after counsel had addressed the Court, His AVorehip intimated that he would take time to consider his decision.