TALE OF A COAT.

Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 274, 7 February 1929, Page 4

TALE OF A COAT.

CONFLICTING EVIDENCE. A Solomon’s Judgment. In the Magistrate’s Court at Putaruru there was a great deal of contradictory evidence heard by Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M., when W. Mohi (Messrs. Hampson and Bell) sued L. E. Glass, tailor, of Auckland, for the sum of £4 10s paid as deposit on an overcoat. In outlining the case, Mr. Bell stated that Moki gave an order for an overcoat valued at £6 10s, on which he paid a deposit. The arranznent was that he would pay the balance when Glass delivered the coat. This the defendant had failed to do, and the amount paid totalled £4 10s. Cross-examined by Glass, who conducted his own defence, plaintiff admitted that he tried on the coat when he purchased it. It was not true that the coat had been brought to the camp every month and offered to him, because he had been on the sick list once and had asked for it another time. Riki Ngatai stated that he was present on one occasion when Mohi and Glass had a conversation regarding the coat. Glass had not asked the plaintiff when he could pay, and Mohi had wanted the coat at that time. In his evidence defendant stated that when he sold the coat for £6 10s plaintiff paid £1 and said he would pay the balance next pay day. When he next saw Mohi he stated he could not pay the balance, but would pay £2, which he did. Defendant then carried the coat with him for three months and later got another 30s. The last time he saw Mohi he stated he didn’t want the coat and asked for liis money back. To the Magistrate, defendant stated he certainly did not leave the coat but that was because the balance had r.ot been paid.

Mr. Bell: You hadn’t the coat on June 21? Defendant: No, I did not arrange to hand it over as he says. Mr. Bell: Then why hawk it on the road as you did? Defendant: In the hope he would pay. Mr. Bell: You saw him in July and August and you were not ready to hand over the coat? Defendant: I could easily have got it up by pay day. l Mr. Bell: But you had the Maorifl W money and the coat. You do a very large business on the afforestation camps ? Defendant: No. Mr. Bell: Then a very considerable business ? Defendant: No. Mr. Bell: You take deposits on coats ? Defendant: Any man who sells a suit without a deposit is a The defendant did not complete the sentence. The Magistrate: What is the value of the coat ? Defendant: Six pounds ten shillings. The Magistrate: What profit? a Defendant (slowly): £l. The Magistrate then stated he was satisfied there was a contract that the coat was to be paid for before being delivered. Defendant’s story seemed the truer one, but it was clear the Maori didn’t want the coat now. Defendant would be allowed his profit on the coat, and the Maori would get a refund of £3, each side to pay their own costs.