IN THE COURTS.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIV, Issue 81, 30 November 1912, Page 5

IN THE COURTS.

BUYING A TIMEPIECE. Conflicting evidence was me main feature of an interesting case at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when Godfrey Phillips, dealer, sued John Phillips, labourer, Whangamomona, for the sum of £4, being tne amount of a watch sold to the defendant. Mr. Kenrick, S.M., was on the Bench, and Mr. Cecil VVTigM appeared for the plaintiff, while Mr. W. D. Anderson appeared for the defendant. Mr Wright briefly outlined tne case for tile plaintiff, and called Godfrey Phillips, who deposed that on August 3rd, defendant came to his shop with a man named Martin-to buy a watch. The tatter said, “This is a friend of mine; lie wants a good watch.” Witness told him a silver hunter keyless Rotheram was the best he could do j for him.

Mr Wright; At what price? Witness: I told him he could have it at cost price. I told him to go over the road to Mr Petrie’s, and lyhatever he asked for a Rotheram, 1 would sell one to him foi‘ 'so much less. I said I would give him it on approval. for one month, and the price £4. Witness continued that on the 18th October, defendant came into his shop, left the watch on the counter, and said he (defendant) was going to New Plymouth, but would come back in the evening to see him and “fix it up.” Witness looked at the watch. It was in a terrible state. Ho asked. “How did it get like that?” and defendant replied, “I keep it in my tent.” The watch was new when he sold it to defendant, but when it was brought back it was in such- a terrible state that he could not sell it as new again. He had promised to take it back again if it did not keep good time. Defendant had promised to come and pay him inside of a month if it went satisfactorily. Mr Anderson : When he brought that watch back did you not tell him yon coud fix him up with another. Witness: No!

Mr Anderson: You deny that? Witness: Yes, I do. “I will come back and fix you up”—that was all be (defendant) said. Mr Anderson: Did you understand that he would pay in the evening? Witness: Yes, I certainly did. Mr Anderson : If you are telling the truth, and since lie was going to pay for it, why did he leave the watcli with you instead of taking it with him ?

Witness did not reply, and Mr Anderson asked had defendant got the watch on approval ? - ■ Witness: 1 gave him no approval at all. He bought the watch. IfTlfdid not keep time, I-take it back. The Magistrate : That is oh approval. Counsel: How long did it remain on the counter?

Witness: 1 put it away for him. Counsel: You didn’t object to receive the watch. Witness : I did not receive the watch at all. I objected to take it. Counsel: Did you not try and sell another watch to him?

Witness: I was busy; I had no time. I told defendant to take the watch away. There were five customers in my shop. Mr Anderson said the defence was that the watch was given on approval, was not approved, and was returned. Plaintiff accepted it, and wanted to know if he could not fix him up with another watch.

John Phillips deposed that ho remembered going with Martin to plaintiff’s shop. He (the witness) wan tea to buy a Waltham watch, but plaintiff persuaded him to buy a Rotherarn. Plaintiff tnen took liim to bis no could not buy another Rotherarn in town. Defendant* went across the road, and was shown two w atones ot tiiis make at £4 ID and £5 each. Plaintiff said he could sell him one for £i. Plaintiff then too kliim to Jus nouse, produced a whisky bottle and they Jrau one drinks. Plaintiff said, “ion can cake this here watch, and i’ll let you nave it on trial. 1 think it's a gooa time-keeper.” Oh the following da,) ue looked at the watch and found i. was a secondhand one. It Vas no, even dust-proof. Ho took the vvatcii back about two months later. There was no one in the simp.

Mr Amlerson What, no one ? Witness: There was no one there hut me—him and me. tie said, “What’s the matter with this waten?” I replied, “it’s nothing but a secondhand watch, and is not worth hair the money.” He said, “Look here, I can lix you up with another one.” Continuing, witness swore positively there was no one in the shop at one time. It was early in the morning, and was about 8.30. Mr Anderson: He said he would lix you up with anotner one? Witness: Yes; he took the watch, opened it, and said, “What’s the master with it?”

John Martin gave corroborative evidence. Mr Anderson contended that the evidence was unsatisfactory in that u was contradictory. There were absolute untruths made. Plaintiff hau said he had five customers in his shop—this in a small shop and at a time when no one was about. The watch was sold on approval, and defendant came back again, and plaintiff accepted the watch and tried to fix defendant up with another. On the other hand, the evidence of tne defendant was unshaken. That evidence was corroborated by Martin. Mr Wright contended tnat defendant -was a temperate man; he (defendant) was not drunk and his drink was, on his own statement “shanclygafi.” Ho ridiculed the Jdea that the defendant would have bought the watch if it had shown any of being second-hand. The Magistrate, in finding for plaintiff for the full amount claimed and costs, upheld counsel for plaintiffs contention. It was a case of one man’s word against another man’s, but they had the evidence of the watch, whicn was now in a very bad condition. It was inconceivable the defendant could have purchased the watch in this condition. He held that there had been no acceptance by plaintiff of the watch.