MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXII, Issue 4322, 26 September 1921, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

HAURAKI PLAINS CASE. CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM. . A claim for £43 12s 7d was heard at the Thames Magistrate’s Court, before J. H. Salmon, Esq., S.M., Thomas J. Beaver (Mr Bryan) being the plaintiff and H.. P. Whittaker, of Waitakaruru, being the defendant. Defendant .counter-claimed for £32 9s, the value of sheep supplied. Stanley Kendall said that prior to the present year he had assisted plaintiff with his books. In May last witness was instructed to get the books up-tp-date. This he did. There was an .account of Whittaker’s owing for £4O. Up to that date there had been no account-from Whittaker for stock. T. J. .Beaver, to Mr Garland, said that he could not have got sheep from defendant as defendant had no sheep at that time. Stanley entered' witness’ employ in June or July, 1919. Francis J. Stanley, butcher, of Waitakaruru, said he had been working for plaintiff since July, 1919. He had delivered to Whittaker. Frank Stretton, farmer, of Waitakaruru, said he remembered that at the end of March, 1919, plaintiff got a black heifer from defendant.- He thought £lO was too much to pay for the animal. It was in poor condition for butchering. Harry P; Whittaker, he used to get meat from Beaverrand his two employees also got meat from Beaver. These two men paid their own accounts. He had agreed to pay Davis’ March account wiTh Beaver, as Davis was ill at that time. He had never led Beaver to believe that witness was responsible for meat supplied to his (witness’) men. He had had trouble in obtaining accounts from Beaver. Witness quoted from a diary regarding sheep supplied to Beaver at various times. Frank Stanley gave evidence of the delivery of the meatTHE DEFENCE. H. P. Whittaker denied having undertaken to pay for the meat supplied to his employees. He gave particulars as sheep supplied to plaintiff? verifying his evidence by reference to his diary. He claimed the sheep were not sold by weight, but at so much per head. He denied he had received accounts charging him with meat supplied to his employees.

Isaac Haley stated that the price of 22s 6d per sheep, which the plaintiff had allowed defendant, was too low. Witness had received only one account in 12 months from plaintiff, and had had to ask three times for it before it was delivered. Further evidence of <ihe loose method of rendering accounts was given. Mr Garland said it was impossible to call corroborative evidence of the dates or numbers of the supplies of sheep, and witnesses would not be able to remember what happened two years ago. He submitted that the defendant’s diary was the best evidence procurable. Unless the magistrate was prepared to hold the defendant made the entries in the diary with the deliberate intention of defrauding the plaintiff, he must accept the entries as correct. . Mr Bryan contended that defendant had not discharged the onus of proof regarding the counter-claim. He also contended he was entitled to judgment for the balance of £lO 18s 6d in dispute. The magistrate held that the defendant was liable to pay for the meat supplied to his employees, and he accepted the evidence of plaintiff on that poin,t. He held also that the defendant’s version of the sheep supplied was the more likely one, and gave judgment for the full amount of the counter-claim and costs, less £7 19s 6d for meat supplied to defendant’s employees. Judgment was therefore given for defendant Whittaker for £24 9s 6d and costs, the net result in the disputed items.