A FLAXMILL DEAL.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 1276, 25 July 1914, Page 2

A FLAXMILL DEAL.

ACCOUNTS IN DISPUTE. A dispute in connection with accounts respecting a recent flaxmill deal was settled at yesterday’s sitting of the Magistrate’s Court. The plaintiff was Donald Green, for whom Mr Cooper appeared, and the defendant, Albert John Gibbs, who was represented by Mr Moore.

The claim arose out of the deal whereby defendant . purchased plaintiff’s “ Maitai ” fllaxmill,,, one of the conditions of the purchase being that defendant was also to take over the stock of'coal, which had been purchased at strike rates. This had been done but there was a dispute as to the weight of same. Plaintiff also claimed for cartage 4s Bd, and weighing 16s 6d, but defendant contended that according to the sale note the coal was to be taken over from the railway yard ’ and therefore he was not responsible for the expense incurred by the plaintsff in carting to the ‘gas works yard and the cost of weighing same. Defendant filed a counter claim for 12s for coal lent plaintiff some time previously, £n 19s 3d for share of fuel, etc., used in scutching up plaintiff's fibre and 17s 6d fofre : conditioning and carting stripper slips oh behalf of plaintiff.

A considerable amount of evidence was, given for both parties. For the plaintiff jF; D. Whibley stated that in company with the plaintiff and Mr Stunell, gas works manager, he had examined the weighbridge book at the gas works according to which the amount carted into the works was 33 tons 17 cwt, this being the amount set out in the statement of claim.

Donald Green, plaintiff, corroborated the previous witness* evidence in regard to the quantity of coal weighed into the gas works yard. Although the sale note signed by Devin, and Co., Dtd., provided that portion of fuel, etc., used at the mill during the time bis fibre was being scutched up should be paid lor by plaintiff, he had subsequently made an agreement with defendant whereby no charge was to be made in’'connection with same. Referring to the coal mentioned in the counter claim witness said the arrangement made was that the ‘coal borrowed was to be returned. He was prepared to return it and bad instructed a local coal merchant to do so but defendant had refused to take delivery of it. Similar coal to that borrowed could be put into defendant’s yard at about 25s 6d per ton, but defendant had claimed strike rates for it.

William Nye stated that plaintiff had instructed him to deliver six tons of coal to defendant but he had refused to take delivery of it on the ground that at the time plaintiff did. not owe him any coal.

For the defendant Thomas Powell stated that he carted 13 tons odd of coal from the gas works yard to defendant’s mill and Whiti Rapana stated his man carted certain coal, these two amounts bringing the weight, up to the total paid for by defendant. Henry Stunell stated that something over 30. tons was received into the gas works yard. The coal carted away by Rapana’s man was not weighed at the works as the waggon was too heavy for the bridge. Kenneth Kennedy said that he weighed the coal carted by Rapana’s man at the mill, the weight being as set out in defendant's statement.

Albert J. Kellbw, under whose supervision the coal in question should have been weighed, stated that it was impossible for him to personally supervise each load, but he had subsequently made enquiries and was satisfied that the weight stated by defendant was correct.

Albert J. Gibbs stated that the arrangements made with Levin and Co., agents for plaintiff, were that the coal was to be taken delivery of from the railway yard, not the gas works, and he therefore should not be called upon to pay for the cartage from the railway to the gas works. He was to pay tor the coal on the outgoing weight, which was as set down in his statement. As far as the scutching up was concerned,' when plaintiff spoke to him about it, he understood from him that Levin and Co. bad made a mistake, and said if that were so he would agree to doing the scutching up without charge. He •immediately communicated with Levin and Co., and fouud out that no mistake had been made, and subsequently told plaintiff that the sale note would have to stand. This concluded the evidence. The Magistrate held that it had been proved that the amount of coal claimed for had been put in the gas works yard, and as it had not been weighed out as laid down in the sale note, the loss would have to fall on the defendant." As far as the scutching up was 'concerned, there was conflict in the evidence ot the parties, and therefore they would have to go back to the agreement, which was that a charge was to be made. claim for cartage and weighing would not be allowed, as the sale note stipulated the coal was to be taken over from the railway yard. Judgment was entered up for plaintiff for £l4 6s, with costs. 21s, and solicitor’s tee £1 6s.