A GROCERY ACCOUNT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXX, Issue 51, 16 October 1914, Page 5

A GROCERY ACCOUNT.

NON-SUIT ENTERED. At the Court this morning, Court and Cottier proceeded against Annie Abbott for £." 17s Id, balance alleged to be due on a grocery account incurred by defendant, members of her family or her, employees. Mr Thomson appeared for plaintiff and Mr Rutherfurd for defendant. At last week's sitting ev' ience was given by plaintiff, and the dispute centred round goods supplied to defendant's son, who said tha goods were to be charged to his mother. Annie Abbott, defendant, giving evidence, said that when her husband died, Court and Cott'er owed him £6, which witness instructed McPhillips, the caretaker of the farm at Whangamomona, to take out in goods. She had no knowledge of her "son and James Reilly being out on the farm. At present she owed Court and Cottier nothing. , The account for July, 1913, whicn was in dispute, had been brought under hep notice by Court. She told him she knew nothing of it, and Court said he would issue a summons. Witness had never given Court and Cottier authority to supply goods to anybody but McPhillips. To Mr Thomson: She knew nothing about her son and Reilly being on > the .farm. She did not know what they were doing on the farm. Mr Thomson: Have you discussed the matter with your son? Witness: No. Mr Thomson: Is that so, even itt view of the fact that there is a case for compensation pending on behalf of O'Reilly, in respect of an injury, suffered while on the farm? Witness: I didn't know they were on the farm. If I had knowr they were there I should hav_» got the Sergeant to shift them away. Continuing, witness said she knefr i nothing about fencing being done by her son and O'Reilly. Neither had been paid any wages. ;. Mr Thomson: Is it not a fact that . you are denying this" liability because of possible effect it might have on the compensation case? Witness replied that when she denied liability to Court he threatened her in regard to the compensation' case. Witness told him he could'do his worst. William McPhillips, caretaker of Mrs Abbott's farm at Whangamomona, said that in July last Harold Abbott and O'Reilly came to the farm. Witness got no goods for them from Court and Cottier. They were not working under m's instructions, nor did he work with them. Witness's supplies from Court' and Cottier cost about 5s oer month. To Mr Thomson: Witness did not take delivery at the sto*e of any goods for Abbott and his mate. They seemed to be out at the faim for a spell. Mr Thomson asked that witness' answers be taken down, in view of a prosecution for perjury. Court had sworn that McPhillips took some of the goods away from the store in defendant's cart. The S.M. said that at present ifc was oath against oath. Mr Rutherfurd said he intended to call one of Court's employees on. the question of delivery. After a few more questions Mr Thomson said the witness' evidence seemed of no value. The S.M. said it was of as much value as that given by plamtiff—nothing had been advanced to show that the evidence of McPhillips was of no value. Henry Jakes, butcher, lately in the employ of Court and Cottier, said that McPhillips had np.or bought meat and booked it. The S.M., summing up, said Harold Abbott had persuaded Cour; to c';:;rge goods to his mother. But Court was somewhat ill-advised Abbott's word, .when he had given evidence that he would not trust Abbott. It was not clear that tlio sum was owing by the person sued. Court's remedy was to proceed aga;»*t Harold Abbott. Plaintiff wou 3 be nonsuited, with costs and exr* use? L'l Us.