CLAIM FOR DEBT.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIX, Issue 5296, 6 July 1928, Page 2

CLAIM FOR DEBT.

KEREPEEHI STORE CASE. PLAINTIFF NON-SUITED. At the Paeroa. Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr S. L. Paterson, S.M., W. H. Beale (Mr C. N. O’Neill), formerly storekeeper at Kerepeehi but now of Rotorua, proceeded against Reuben Connor (Mr C. J. Garland), butcher, of Kerepeehi, claiming £36 ISs 7d, being balance due for goods supplied to May 31, 1926. Mr, O’Neill explained that the period for .which credit was given, was from February, .1925, to June, 1926. The defendant was prepared to recognise the house account, but not the shop account, amounting, to £22 7s 6d. Herbert W. Beale, plaintiff, said that the two accounts had been separated for the convenience of defend-' ant. Both debts had been incurred' during the period, principally by Mrs Connor, and accounts had been sent out at regtilar intervals. Witness produced counter-books and a ledger and' explained the accounts in detail. When' credit was stopped the total of the two 1 accounts was £5l-odd, for which a demand for payment was made through a firm of Turua solicitors,. The solicitors received no money actually from defendant, but £l5 was paid by Mrs Connor to witness’s majiager at Kerepeehi. z Two letters from the solicitors at Turua were ruled out by the magistrate as not being evidence against tlie defendant.

Continuing, plaintiff said that inMarch, 1926, when he was living a.t Rotorua, he visited Kerepeehi and found that further, credit had been given to defendant. He wrote and demanded payment, and later a cheque for, £6 was paid into the Kerepeehi store.

At this stage Mr O’Neill said that he had been unable to obtain the evidence of the store manager in the time, and if defendant, was prepared to deny that he had received details of the accounts he would have to apply for an adjournment. The magistrate said that it was not a case in which he was prepared to grant an adjournment.

Mr Garland said he could not agree to an adjournment being made, especially in view of the receipt of a letter from Mr O’Neill advising definitely that the case would be heard that day.

'The magistrate, said that so far as’ the case had gone the 'evidence was’ ■not satisfactory, and he advised Mr’ O’Neill to elect to accept a non-suit-After conferring with plaintiff M* O’Neill accepted a non.suit, with costs, solicitor’s fee £3 3s, and witness’s expenses £1 7s.