C.T.A. SUED.

Hokitika Guardian, 17 March 1920, Page 2

C.T.A. SUED.

“SURPRISE PACKET” THAT WAS A SURPRISE. AUCKLAND, March 11An action in regard to a piano offered by the Auckland Commercial Travellers’ and Warehousemen’s Association as a prize on their Surprise Packet Day, on November 28tli was brought before Mr J. W. Poynton in the Magistrate’s Court, Auckland, this week, by Mrs Margaret Garland Pike (Mr Inder), who claimed £IOO damages from the association (Mr Meredith). Plaintiff stated that the defendants advertised as one of the prizes to be won on the occasion named a piano valued at £IOO. She purchased a surprise packet, securing the ticket for the piano. Tneieafter she received from the secretary of the defendant association an order on a local firm for a piano. Prior to this, plaintiff alleged, she had seen a “John Brinsmead” piano in the company’s window, which, she said, was placarded as the prize piano. She alleged also that it was pointed out by an employee as the prize piano. The instrument deever, was a “Horace Brinsmead.” She livered to her on the following day, howelaimed that the piano delivered was not the one exhibited, nor was it worth £IOO.

A. Adams, a cabinet maker, stated that the piano was delivered in Carlton Gore road on Saturday, November 29tli. Part of the frame and moulding, which bad been renovated, was missing. Upon the instrument being valued £SO was offered for it. Other evidence was given to the effect that the piano was sold for £SO, and after renovation was increased in value to £7O.

For the defence, Mr Meredith stated he had evidence to show that the association had paid 5.95 for the piano, and also that the “Horace Brinsmead” piano was the only one exhibited. Evidence was given that the piano suplied was the one exhibited, and that the “John Brinsmead” referred to was in another part of the shop. The magistrate said that, according to the evidence, the plaintiff must have been mistaken. In regard to the valuation of the piano lie would take the evidence. of selling value of the instrument at £95, as given by a witness from the shop where it was exhibited, rather than the estimates given from the purchasers’ point of view. The plaintiff was, therei fore, entitled to £5 damages and costs, and lie gave judgment accordingly.