AN HOTEL BILL.

King Country Chronicle, Volume V, Issue 319, 10 December 1910, Page 5

AN HOTEL BILL.

• ♦ CONFLICTING STATEMENTS. At the Magistrate's Court, Te Kuiti, on Thursday, before Mr F. O'B. Loughnan, S.M., a Maori named Whare Hotu (Mr Sharpies) was sued by E. H. Kerr (Mr Finlay) for the amount of an hotel bill. Mr Finlay, for plaintiff, said defendant had come into the hotel in February. 1908, and said he would be responsible for the board of a man named Dove.

Ernest H. Kerr, hotelkeeper, gave similar evidence. The entry in the ledger produced had been made by his clerk. Defendant had subsequently promised to pay and said he had been expecting to get some money from Mr Lusk.

Cross-examined by Mr Sharpies: He could not give defendant's exact words, but they were to the effect that he would be responsible. The entry had been made at the time in the ledger. Further exaimned he said the entry had been made but he could not say when. The fir3t time the account was sent out it was sent by Nicholson in 1909, and the second time by Fox. Wm. Henry Clayton, accountant for Mr Kerr, had sent out the account during May to July 1909 several times. Defendant had been asked in his presence to pay the account, and hud said it would be all right as he would pay it that afternoon. Witness explained that an entry in the ledger at the top of page 123, dated July 1908, followed further down by an entry dated March 1908, meant that the latter was a balance brought from an old ledger. Mr Sharpies: Then I want to see the other ledger. Witness said to economise space those who had used it had gone into the middle of a page. He did not regard his explanation as a remarkably ridiculous one. There had been three or four people at the books. Whare Hutu denied having had any conversation with Mr Kerr, promising he would pay if he let Dove stay at the hotel.

To the Magistrate: What Mr Clayton said was all untrue.

Mr Sharpies submitted that so far as Mr Clatyon's evidence was concerned it might be safely neglected. Not because of any untruth on his part, but because it only amounted to a collateral promise on the part of defendant.

Tlie magistrate thought (defendant's statement to Mr Clayton was a very strong hint that he acknowledged liability. Mr Sharpies continued that the ledger was not corroborative evidence and the entry looked-as though it had besn put in a long time afterwards. Mr Finlay held that Mr Kerr's statement was distinct corroborative evidence. If not, Whare Ilutu would have asked what the amount was and what it was for. Instead, he said "all right," which was corroborative of what Mr Kerr said. In the ledger index the names ran straight down, and if entered up in order, the entry was substantiated.

The magistrate said it would naturally be expected that defendant would call and tell Mr Kerr if he disputed the acount. He laid stress on the fact that planitiff and his witness were clear that the promise had been made and gave judgment for plaintiil lor £4 10s 6d wtih costs ,£ls 15s (id.