LIABILITY DENIED

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 285, 27 July 1932, Page 6

LIABILITY DENIED

rotorua cash CATERING COSTS FOR DANCE DURING CARNIVAL IN 1930. . PLAINTIFF'S CLATM SUCCEEDS. Ihe aftermnth of a midnight dance which was held on Kew Year's night of 1930, was the appearance in the Rotorua Civil Court yesterday of Roger Ingram Dansey. of Rotorua, at the suit of G. W. Yaughan and Co., who clair.fd from the defendant 1 the sum of £20 18s Gd as the cost of goods supplied in connection with the catering n.u" the functson. Defendant, who was ropicented by Mr. A. Y. 1J. Ford., denied Tiability, but after hearing evidence, the Magistrate, Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M., fcund for plaintiff company on the fuJl amount of the ciann, with costs £5 3s. Mr. E. Roe app'-ared for plnintiffs. George Vaughan, manager of the company, stated in evidence that Dansey had called to see him by ap~ pointmeus, p.ior to the ordering of the goods, and had said that he intended to get i'p a surper on New Year's Evc for returned soldiers , since there was nothing to entertain them and keep them off ihe streets after midnighr. on that night. The ; amount of oome.-dibh s required had been diseussed, and defendant had made several visits, on the last oecasion heing accompanied by another man. Pluintiff agreed to do the catering and handed niaintiff over to his small-goods man. Defendant did most of the talking and requested witness to supply two men to do the carving; witness said that as it was a returned soldiers' function he would send along two returned men. Witness took instruc- : tions from nobody except defendant until after the goods had been delivered, and he had booked the goods to defendant. The day following the dance, Dansey had congratulated witness on the quality of the goods, and said that everything had gone off all right. Witness never questioned Danseyh authority, and had had no instructions from a man named Sumnei either by phone or \erbally. Witness then - detailed the variour steps taken to apply for paymenl after he had been told subsequent to Surnner's death that Dansey repudiated responsihility. Harold Walker, oue of plaintifi's emplojees. who did the carving, said that he took his ordcrs oniy from Dansey. Albert Edward Roussell, smallgoods man, corroborated plaintifi's evidence, and also detailed oruers he had received from Dansey whilst carving at the ball. Defendant's Evidence. Roger Ingram Dansey, clerk, said in evidence that in December 1930, he acted as honorary organiser to the borough council for the carnival. Mr. Sumner had asked him to organise the midnight ball, and he agieed to assist. though he wouiu liave nothing to uo with the finc.ncia arrangements. Sumner later phoned him stating that he was in touch with Yaughan, and asked witness if he w'ouid go down and assist. Witness knew nothing as to .he iinaneial arrangements made by Sumner with Vaughan- but witness had noik-ug t.> do with the finance. H" had gcnerally supervhed the ordcring of Ihe goods. The Returned Soldiers' Association had nothing whatever ic do with the ball or its cxecuhvt would have run lt\^ btnl. Vilness. was not the sports qaeen committee, but assisted ea. the ground that he wished to heip anjtinng tuai wotud give entertainment to visitors to the town. Witness had d-ueussed the matter with Mr. E. T. Johnson, ebaiivaari of the sports queen commiUc-ee, who acted in a similar advisory capac'.ty witih Mr. Sumner. Witness had looked after the supper. Not ResponsibSe. Examined by Mr. Roe, witness ra u that he had had no couvx-rsation w th Vaughan concerning returned .soldiers. Sumner had dealt with Vaughan previously. und witness considered that Sumner was responsible for all financial arrangements. Ernest Thomas Johnson, agent, stated that Sumner arranged to hoid the dance and any profits were to come to the sports queen committoe. Witness helped hy taking the cash at the door, and had taken £36 odd, which he handed over to Sumner. Witness knew Dansey was assistmg' and believed that he was in charge of the refreshments. Witness and Dansey put in a elaim 1o Surnner's estate and received an olfer of half the amount of the claim. He had approached Vaughan to see if he would accept this olfer, but it was turned down. Witness, in answer to the Beneh, stated that his view was that Sujnnei should pay accounts. Chas. John Francis, hus driver, gave evidence that Sumner had paid his account for transporting the orchestra to the dance. Judgment was entcved for plaintiff Company for the full amount. plus costs.