SALE OF GOODS.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVI, Issue 4822, 8 April 1925, Page 3

SALE OF GOODS.

DENIAL OF RECEIPT. PLAINTIFF NON-SUITED. At the Magistrate’s Court at Paeroa on Monday, before Mr J. H. Salmon, S M., D, A. Vincent (Mr E. A. Porritt) proceeded against W. Richmond (Mr Tv. S. Carden) for payment of a van breeching and shafting valued at £3 17s 6d, supplied in July, 1920, and shaft tugs valued at £1 7s 6d, supplied in October, 1920.

David A, Vincent, saddler, Paeroa, said that the amount claimed was due for goods supplied, and he produced a number of books and detailed the two transactions. At the time the sales were made plaintiff’s business was managed by Mr A. Fielder, since deceased. There had been two accounts, in the name of Richmond Bros, and W. Richmond. A credit of £2 Ids 6d had already been allowed to W Richmond owing to an error in charging to the wrong account. That amount was later disputed by Richmond Bros., and plaintiff had written it off as he could not collect it, Plaintiff said that defendant was well kmwn to his manager, and he did not think that a mistake had been made. At that time his, books were kept, by a man named Rountree, who was also decesued.

To Mr Carden plaintiff said that he did not remember defendant disputing the account some three years ago. Accounts had been .forwarded regularly to defendant. The van breeching had been consigned to defendant at Hikutaia, and although no receipt had been given by the tablet porter at Hikutaia it was unlikely that the goods .had not been delivered, The amount had been charged to defendant for over twelve months before he disputed receiving the breeching. To His Worship plaintiff said that the defendant w,as well known to him, and he had transacted business with him for some years.

Charles Vincent said that he was employed by his brother in the saddlery business.. Witness detailed ths consigning of the breeching to. Richmond, Hikutaia, and produced a duplicate receipt in a railway consignment book bearing the initials of a . station clerk at Paeroa Witness said that he gave assistance for a while in 1920 in sending out the accounts. . The defence was a denial of having received the goods. Walter Richmond, farmer, Cambridge, detailed the selling of his farm in 1920, at which time he contended that he had paid plaintiff in full. Later an account was received from plaintiff for the goods in dispute. He then wrote to plaintiff and told him that he knew nothing of tne goods, and had never received them ; neither had he 1 , ever ordered them, either through plaintiff or his manager- . , . To Mr Porritt defendant said that he sold his Turtfa farm and gave possession of his Hikutaia farm to his son in July, 1930. Plaintiff’s account had been paid by cheque to the manager about, that time. To His Worship defendant said that other than his son there was no other person named Richmond at Hikutaia. His son had no authority t<> purchase goods in his name. William Richmond, farmer, Nethertov. said, that defendant was his uncle. Plaintiff from time to time had done repair work for defendant and witness, but the goods in dispute had never been purchased or ordered. He had taken the matter up with plaintiff’s manager when he received the account, and Mr Fielder had admitted that a mistake had been made by the book-keeper, Rowntree, and it would be adjusted.

William Frederick Richmond, son of the defendant, said that he was managing his father’s farm at Hikutain. He had no authority to pledge defendant’s name for goods, and had never ordered the breeching from the plaintiff. The harness liad not been taken delivery of by him at Hikutaia. Hainess was not required on the farm, and in any case there was a spare set. of harness. He had no recollection of receiving aii account from plaintiff. To Mr Porritt witness said that he had purchased cattle medicines and small items and charged them to his father, but the harness had not befen ordered by him.

To His Worship witness said that he had never had any transactions with plaintiff, and did very little business of any kind in Paeroa. George Odgen, a partner of the previous witness, gave corroborative evidence. Groceries and goods of such nature were paid for by himself and F. W. Richmond, wiho had been in partnership at Hikutaia for nearly five years. He did not know plaintiff, and had never been in his shop in Paeroa.

In summing up the Magistrate said that there was considerable doubt about the goods being supplied, and in view of the evidence submitted plaintiff would be non-suited. Costs were allowed defendant amounting to £3 Ils 3d.