CLAIM FOR TIMBER.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIV, Issue 4549, 11 April 1923, Page 2

CLAIM FOR TIMBER.

• ■ CASE AT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. At the Magistrate’s Court on Monday, before Mr J. H. Salmon. S.M , RPhillips (Mr E. W. Porritt), sawmiller, claimed from F. Green (Mr J. L. Hanna) the sum of £8 10b, being balance for the removal of shed and timber supplied. R. Phillips, sawmiller, Paeroa, sworn, said that there was no question about the correctness of the claim There had been np arrangement made as to any specified amount of timber to be used on the job of removing the shed. He had given defendant receipts for all moneys -received by him.

To Mr HannaHe had allowed defendant certain timber when the shed had been purchased. The timber had been supplied in July last. Defendant paid £2 about September,,- and a further £2 at a later date. He could noi remember the actual dates. His books would show all moneys received. There had been no dispute of the account until plaintiff pressed for payment, , .Frederick Green, farmer, sworn, said the timber supplied to him was outside edges of timber. Plaint iff told him that the waggon was going down, and would deliver a load lor £2 He was quite willing to pay what heowe.l plaintiff,' Gross-examined by Mr Porritt, defendant said that he had paid Phillips some £lO on different dates,. The receipts had been retained by-' defendant. He did not dispute the amount due up to the time of the summons being issued. He had never queried the price of planitiff’s timber. He had received -all the accounts from plaintiff, and he had promised that he would pay in full as soon as he was able. Defendant said he had been laid up for nearly three months a’nd had got a little behind in his payments) He was always on good terms with plaintiff, and had no intention of disputing payment of his account until plaintiff summoned him for the balance owing. Tn reply to His Worship plaintiff said his receipt books were numbered in duplicate. Before October 31 defendant had paid £2 ; then in Novemfendant had paid £2 t;hen in November. he had received a further £2, and a receipt had been given for the £4 received. His Worship, in sumimng up,, said that it was one of those unfortunate cases of oath against oath. The plaintiff’s books were not sufficiently well kept to throw any light on tjm transaction, and under the circumstances he was bound to find for the defendant and give judgment for the amount that he had proved was due. Plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the sum of £5 10s, with costs £2 15s.