A WAIKANAE CASE.

Otaki Mail, 6 February 1922, Page 4

A WAIKANAE CASE.

CLAIM- i’Oll- FIREWOOD. ] At Thursday's sitting of the Otaki G.M. Court'A. V. C'oic aiul L. J. Con,l ay (Mr Atmorc) proceeded against •F. C. Wilson (Mr K. Adams) for £lls |S yd, while Wilson counter-claimed Lor £195. By an agreement Wilson agieeti to sell 94. cords 'lircwood and cerium plant at J£l-J=H, of which sum £25 | was paid as a deposit. The counter* I claim was £lls for the balance of the purchase money and £59 for damages 1 suffered by the defendant by reason ol j tiiu default of plaintiff, j The Magistrate, at the'. opening of tile case, took a question of jurisdiction of the Court to eM.ertiun tire claim, but 'lie decided to hear the case and reserve his decision until such time as he could look into the point more closely. He j would give Counsel an opportunity it necessary to argue the question at a later date. Mr Atinore for- the plaintiffs said , that the plaintiffs entered into an ' agreement with the defendant Wilson - : on February- and, IQ-.t, for the stile of firewood, plant, etc., and right of cutting wood off Fort's property, Wuika nae. The purchase money was £l4O and plaintiffs also released Wilson from the- claim against him for wages £4U Ids (id. This would mean that the purchase money was £IBO 18s 6d. Before signing the agreement Wilson re presented that he had a standing order for wood of the class the subject to tim agreement with the State Coal Department, Wellington, at 88s per cord ami also with Samuel Brown, of Wellington, wood-dealer, at £2 per cord. Plaintiffs entered into the contract on the understanding that these representations wore true. Before signing the contract • Wilson had received a letter from the [ State Wood Department refusing to accept any- more wood of the class which ho had been sending. On signing the contract plaintiffs phoned the State yard and advised them of the sale who said that they- had advised Wilson that they would not accept any more of his wood. At this time plaintiffs had three trucks of wood loaded on trucks at Waikanae. Plaintiffs toll. ' the State Department and they agreci. to accept delivery on appro. Plaintiffs i then went to Wellington to interview JMr Lorensen, the manager of the 'State yard, and ho refused to accept the three trucks because they contain I ed too many branches and insufficient I barrel wood. Eventually Mr Lorenson agreed to accept the wood on the unI dertaking that plaintiffs would not send any more branch wood. Plaintiffs immediately advised Wilson of the inter view and that they would not completion the terms of the original contract. Plaintiff's made Wilson a reduced offer which he would not accept. Wilson offered to accept £75 in full satisfaction of the £lls then duo to him, but this was unstamped. While the matter was a in abeyance Mr Port refused permission I to Wilson to take any more wood from

the property. The defendant’s solicitors gave plaintiffs notice on the 9th May, 1921, that the contract was determined. The item of £4U ISs (Id represented wages for wood cutting to date of agreement and was shown in tlie agreement anil admitted by- defendant. The item of £l9 19s tid was money paid out in pursuance of the contract. The claim of £3O was represented -by (1) loss of work, 14 days; (2) three trips to Waikanae from Palmerston N.; (3) legal expenses. Counsel submitted that defendant could not succeed on his counter-claim as the contract had been determined by his own solicitors. A letter to this 1 effect would be produced. Defendant could not claim for the balance of purchase money and at the same time admitted that the contract had been determined by' him {or his solicitors). Counsel then put in the evidence of K. J. Conway taken at Wanganui which was as follows: — My name is Edward Joseph Conway. I am one of the plaintiffs in this case. Xam a labourer at Wanganui. At the end of January, 1921, 1 was working for Mr F. C. Wilson on Mr Port’s property at Waikanae. I was splitting firewood for Mr Wilson, the defendant, by contract. Mr Alfred Frank Cole, the other plaintiff, and I were mates

and were working together for Mr Wilson. We were paid at the rate of 17s bd per cord. On the 2nd February, 1921, Mr Cole and I signed an agreement with Mr Wilson for the purchase of 94 cords of fire wood, together 'with Mr Wilson’s plant consisting of saws, axes, etc. At the time, the 2nd February, 1921, Mr Wilson owed Mr Cole and I together the sum of £49 JSs fid for wages, being the amount still due to us for wood, cutting at the rate of 17s 6d a cord. Mr Wilson could not pay us this sum and it was decided that the amount should be included in the

: purchase price. The actual purchase money' was £l4O and this, with our claim for wages of £4O ISs 6d, made the total purchase money .really £lso : ISs tid. Before the agreement was en v tered into Mr Wilson to m? that he hfld a standing order for wood £of the class the .subject of the agreeintent at 3Ss per cord. lie also said that he had a standing order with Mr Samuel Brown of Wellington, wood

. dealer, at £2 per cord. Mr Cole and I t entered into the contract on the underI standing that these representations * were true. The agreement was signe/J I in front of Mr Johnson, J.P. of Waika- > nae. We were to pay a deposit of £25 I but we decided to ring up the State \ Coal Office at Wellington first, ilr WilIson wished to catch the 12 o'clock train to Wellington, aniline said that if we waited to telephone to Wellington he would miss his" train. Wilson ngi-in

Isaid that we need not worry at all about the market for the wood and he assured both of us in the presence of Air Johnson that we could take his word for it that he {Wilson) had a standing order with Mr Laurenson, the

' Manager of the State Coal Department fat Wellington, for .us much as 2,000

' cords of wood similar to’ that which we 1 liai! been cutting. Alter ine second I asiJuiuuce fiom Mr Wilson we paid £25 ] deposit and Mr Wilson caught ms Lain. About an hour afterwards we went to the Post Office ami telfp.nm.-d the btate Coni Department in Wellington : and advised them of our pin chase i.om Wilson. The fcjlatc Coal lA’jmi insoni j manager told us that he had already' ‘ advised Wilson that the Depaitm.-ntj would not accept any more oi Wilson's | 1 wood, because it was not up to the J 1 standard required. At this time we had three trucks of wood loaded on the trucks at Waikanae. We told the State Coal Department this and they' agreed to accept delivery on appro. Next day we went to Wellington and . interviewed Mr Laurenson, the maiia- j gor of the State yard, and he refused to accept the three trucks because they s contained too many branches and in- j 1 sufficient barrel wood. Finally Mr 1 Laurenson agreed to accept the wood ! 1 already to hand on the undertaking j 1 that we would not send any more I 1 'branch wood. On our return to Witika- : line we told Wilson that he hud inisry- - presented the position and that we would not complete on the terms of ’ [tile original contract, We made a re--1 duced offer which he would not accept.- ’ He offered to accept £75 in full satisfac- - non of the balance of the £lls. but wt would not agree. On or about the 7th February, Mr Port told Mr 'Wilson ho 1 was not to take any more woo 1 from .ho property. I understand that, the defendant's solicitors notified my snI ilcitors on the 9th May', 1921, that the ■: | contract was determined. 1 now bes ffeve that Wilson actually hud the let- ' ter referred to from Mr Laurenson in * his pocket before the contract was ent tered inio. The item of £4O 18s 6(1 in e tile statement of claim represents the ’ wages for wood cutting of myself and the other plaintiff, Mr Cole, due to us c ‘ up to the second February', 1921. My e „ m te anil 1 cut on the average two cord b a day each. Oa the 3rd February, the II .nine day as we interviewed the State l ' ileal Yard official,' we went to see Mr s Samuel Brown. Mr Brown told us 11 ; hat the statement that he was preparL * ed to pay Mr Wilson £2 a cord for his u wood was absolutely' wrong. Ho said ' that he would have nothing to do with ' Mr Wtlsi-.li as the wood was unsuitable, e flic item of £l9 19s is money paid out 1 by us in pursuance of the contract and e wages as shown in the statement of I claim. Mr Cole has all the receipts in II connection with the matter. He mant- aged most of the business resulting d from the contract. The item of £3O is I made up by our loss of time as a re- -' suit of our loss of work for 14 days, c - travelling expenses, and legal expenses C as a result of the misrepresentations of ■*' the defendant. Mr Cole made at least f-4three trips between Waikanae and PalII j mcrstoii North, several to Otaki and t*’ one to Wellington. I went to Wellingts ton -once and two or three times to n Otaki. Mr Cole is best able to show 111 1 lio details of this amount as I believe •- he has kept a record of our expenses. •h | A. F. Cole, sworn, gave similar evi-

deuce. i The evidence of A. G. Laurenson, f manager of the Government Firewood .Department, was also put in. This ■ evidence had been taken in WellingI ton. - Mr Atmorc, sworn, said that defendant called at his office on 25th May, 1921, and endeavoured to settle for £75 in lieu of £1.15. He admitted reeeiv-l.-i the Department’s letter, but said lie hail received thousands before. The j plaintiffs had sorted and trucked the , wood complained of. Witness under--1 stood from that the plaintiff's did not j know how to conceal the branch wood, j Mr Adams, for the defendant, said i that plaintiffs were relying on misrej presentations as to the firewood which they could not substantiate. The plaintiffs had been working for the defendant prior to ihe date of the argument and knew the class o! -wood sold. He also said that defendant could not betermini: the agreement by letter. He then called defendant F. C. Wilson : who said that plaintiffs had worked for j him prior to the agreement. He said j that he regarded the State Depart- • meat’s letter as a mere remonstance. 1 It was dated 29tli January'. 1921. and j was rb£ first intimation he had receivj ed that his wu.uu was not up to sample. ; When the plaintiff told him of the iu--1 torview with Mr Laurenson he had , made them tin offer of settlement. The plaintiffs knew what sort of wood was j being sold in Wellington by him. Mr Atmorc: "Do you swear that the letter of the 20th January, 1921. was ihe first complaint you received from the Department?" Defendant: Yes. Mr- Atmorc: You are perfectly sure. Defendant: Yes. . Mr Atinore: Mr Laurenson on oath i nay's; X wired defendant on the 21st , January. Wood supplied in lust two (trucks was absolutely- useless and not to send further supplies. Did you receive that telegram? Defendant;. No 1 did nor. Mr Atmorc: You are not telling the truth, iff Laurenson says that he received an imine.ji.rtq reply from you (offering to supply an ektr.i jirpek in place of the inferior wood. Did you 1 make any such proposition or eomnnmi- ' eoto with liijp, j Defendant: No, ’ Mr At more: I would •respectfully ask . Your Worship to take particular note jot defendant ’s statements. He is oh--1 viously lying. Further evidence caii.-J for the de- | fence was given by- Air Johnston wii q , sail] that he drew the agreement -he- , tween the [>a*-;j<?s. Wilson stated that he had an order for tvooi in WMlhWon. -

To Air Atinore: Defendant stated he Had up order for 2090 cords, 4 nut holding certain -proceeds from tlie sale of wood pending a ne-cisipn in this

, case. ' This concluded the evidence and the Magistrate reserved his decision.