AN UNUSUAL CLAIM.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3650, 11 June 1927, Page 2

AN UNUSUAL CLAIM.

AGAINST AN UNDERTAKER. At the local S.M. Court yesterday, before Air. J. L. Stout. S.M., W. 1). Neville (Afr. Bergiu) proceeded against J. A. Hofmann (Mr. Ongley) for the recovery of £7 10s, allegedly due for work done and services rendered. Mr. Bergin, in outlining the case, said that the claim was due for work done in the local morgue in preparing bodies for burial, and also for work done for defendant outside the morgue. Mr. Ongley said that his client did not dispute the fact that plaintiff had done work for him outside the morgue and payment for these services had been made into Court. His client, however, did not accept any responsibility in connection with any work plaintiff may have done in the morgue. That was part of his duty. W. D. Neville, caretaker of the morgue, gave evidence as to defendant having come to an arrangement with him when he first took up his duties, to pay him 10/- to give necessary attention to any body brought into the morgue and assist him in connection with same. He had done this on fifteen occasions, nine of which were at the morgue, but had received no remuneration although lie had made request for payment on several occasions. J. Parker gave evidence as to an agreement that had been entered into with himself and defendant to do similar work at a remuneration of 10s for morgue services, which had been paid. AY. Trueman, Town Clerk, gave evidence to the effect that plaintiff's duty was to attend the morgue, but he had nothing to do with work other than this. A. Walls, carrier, of Foxton, gave evidence as to having assisted defendant on two occasions, for which lie had received pay. Witness had also seen plaintiff assisting defendant in undertaking duties. C. C. Raud, carrier, also gave corroborative evidence. Defendant, in evidence, denied making any arrangement with plaintiff' to do work in the morgue. That was part of his duty. Witness admitted employing plaintiff on outside cases, and payment for this work had been made into Court. The money had always been at the shop for plaintiff, but lie bad never asked for it. The first witness knew of the claim was a solicitor’s letter.

K. J. Ilofmann, son of previous witness, said that he had assisted with four of the cases mentioned by plaintiff in his claim. Witness had spoken to plaintiff about the claim his father had received, aud pointed out that it was incorrect. Plaintill' had taken the account back, and said he would rectify it, but that had been the last they had seen of it.

The S.M. said that there did not appear to be any doubt that plaintiff had done more work than was required of him by the Borough Council. He would give judgment for plaintiff for £5, including the amount paid into Court, with costs £3 15s.