WHOSE SHOOT?

Putaruru Press, Volume IV, Issue 143, 29 July 1926, Page 4

WHOSE SHOOT?

AN ARAPUNI SEND-<5j?P. Beer Gone, Money Too. A peep behind the scenes in regard to a recent send-off at Arapuni was given in the Putaruru Court last week when Thomas Quigley, an elderly winch-driver, proceeded against Thomas Loveridge and Frank Henry, for recovery of the sum of £ll 12s 7d, Which had been spent in liquid refreshment on the occasion of the farewell evening. All the parties to the case are resident workers at Arapuni. Quigley, who was represented by Mr. G. P. Portas, stated that on the occasion of the departure of the general foreman of works, defendants had approached him to obtain a supply of liquor through his son, who worked at the Lion Brewery in Auckland. As it was a cash transaction and time was short, witness explained that it would be necessary to wire the money. As defendants could not raise the money till pay day he advanced the amount necessary. Henry got the consignment note, and lifted the liquor at Putaruru. Witness had not had a taste of the liquor, or his money back. Witness understood that Loverldge was treasurer, though the order was signed by Henry. Loveridge, however, wanted to order two cases of Speights in addition to the two 18’s of beer.

James Patrick Murray, motor lorry driver, stated that he was instructed by the agent of Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth, Ltd., at Putaruru, to lift a consignment of beer addressed to Henry. As there was freight owing on it he did not touch it. His instructions were to drop ft at the hall. Thomas Henry Loveridge, one of the defendants, in giving his version, stated that Henry and Quigley approached him in regard to obtaining the beer through plaintiff’s son. He told them there was plenty of liquor on order, and that there was not sufficient money in hand to pay for any more. He further stated that anything they did in the matter would be on their own account. He received from Henry money to pay for the presentation, and the two gallons of whisky already ordered. Henry had paid on account of £9 at the store, and witness had paid for the whisky and the presentation. During cross-examination by Mr. Portas, witness admitted receiving 12s from a man named Lindsay to help « pay Quigley’s account. He further admitted sending for the two gallons of whisky which was consigned to him personally. To the Bench, witness stated that the presentation consisted of a gold watch which cost 20 guineas. Henry had told him he was coming in to fight the case, and fight it well. (Laughter). Witness could not drag him in, however. In summing up the Magistrate pointed out it was obvious the liquor was obtained for the celebration, and there was no question but that Henry was liable. The case showed the necessity for one man having absolute control of all orders for such functions. The claim against Loveridge would be struck out, with £1 2s as costs, while Henry would have to find the amount claimed, £ll 12s 7d, with £7 Is costs.