"A TARANAKI SWAP."

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LI, Issue 127, 20 May 1908, Page 4

"A TARANAKI SWAP."

The system of exchanging properties in Tarauaki has frequently given rise to litigation, and has become so notorious that a witness in the case of J. 11. Colesby v. 1!. Livingstone (now of Danncvirke) d-scribed the "deal'' as a " tarauaki sWii." 'ilic exchange was made a little coi iplicaleil by a dispute concerning the amount of' slock held by the plaintiif at the time his wood and coal busincsrt was exchanged for defendant's farm at Uruti. Air. C. 11. Weston appeared for plaintiif, and Mr. A. J. Johnstone for defendant.

The claim was for 1147 ISs lid, tnailc up as hillotvs:— Amount of a promissory note, £34 Ills 3d; money received l>j; ilel'riulanl timl alleged not' to have been accounted for to p'iaiiltill, lUs (id; grazing .-dieip and cattle, X 7 Is (id; ami i■ i■ i lirn or harness valued at .Co His, or .Ci Ids and CI daniagi'rt for retention; and interest on note. 11. Cecil Wright,, solicitor, practising in New Plymouth, gave evidence that lie had acted-lor bul.ii parties at the time oi the exchange. There was a liiv pule as to the amount of coal ill .stock hy L'ole.-liv. Kvcntually, against, his ile -ire, it «;is agreed to accept t lie stocksheets as eorreet with the exception ol uiibagged I'uponga ami Westport coal and flruniier nuts. The phiintili'claimed to have II toils Ucwl of I'upunga allots il per ton, 4 tons Dewt W'estpiut. and ii ton. Hi cu tof Uruimcr nut*. lie

produced the slip showing llic measure nielli 01 llie stock made liy -Mr. Tribe, ami which plainulf objected to. i\ pro missory note for .Cti-1 IDs Jd was given by the defendant, to be held by \vilncs.,, this being the estimated value of the slock according to Colesby. lie advised them to have an independent measurement made, but they preferred their : own arrangement. To Air. Johnstone—The l'.X. was for three months, the idea being that by that, time the coal would have been worked out, and the outward clips from the yard would give a Hue record ol ihe amount of the coal in the yard. The amount of the note would be adjusted according to the agreement as to this measurement. Robert Livingston was exchanging the farm for the town properl v and the coal business, but as a matter of .settlement, between the brothers, the coal business was taken over liv (leorge uving-lon. lie galh eied at the time that Colesby knew ol this arrangement. .lane Loesch, a clerk in the employ ol Hie plaimiti and subsequently with the defendant, gave evidence. (.. A. Colsou was called to give ,'Videiiec as to the ainoiuil which might reasonable be charged by Colesby for running Robert Livingston's lew cows and 45(1 sheep at I'ruli, but in cross- . xniiiinatiou he admitted that he had nu knowledge of Cruti grazing rates. J. Jl. Lolesbv, the plainlill', gave evidence of tie- exchange, lie was under the impreteion at the lime that Livingston took over the business on 11th December, but lotind that the collect, date was the 12th. ills books showed that Ills (Id was received by Livingston in the business on the Uth December, and that money had not been paid over 1.0 him. .Some harness was taken over !>y defendant with the business, but no arrangement was made in couneclioii with it, except that Livingston was to allow a "fair thing.'' Witness himself did not agree with defendant that Mr. tribe was to measure the slock. Witness referred to his books, and calculnU'd that there was 21 tons uewt of coal more than Air. Tribe had calculated. The question as to which measurement was correct was to have been settled by the oilier documents when the coal was worked out. Defendant, however, did not inform witness that the coal wa» worked out. or nearly so. In fuel, he din not know it had been finished until some considerable time after, lie was then unable to see the ollice books. He did not know that (leorge Livingston wa,< taking over the business. He never removed any planks from Livingston'" yard. lie 'made no personal demand iipon Livingston for the money, and did not lake any steps to ascertain whether or not the promissury note, given conditionally, rihould be paid. The evidence of the defendant and (leorge Livingston, on commission, denied the receipt of any money upon Coleshy's behalf, and denied that the • mount of coal named by Colesby was in Hie vard. They also repudiated liability (or harness, but admitted the claim for grazing, although that \\\\n considered excessive. Mr. Johnstone said he did not iulernl to dispute Ihe grazing item. The claim for Ills (id. monev received, must rail, lor plaintiff had' failed to show Ihe money -ever reached the pluiiilill'. As In the harness, if there were any claim it must be against George Livings! on The claim for the promissory note must also fail, for the plainlill' was not the holder uf the bill. That promissory note was held by Air. Wright as a stakeholder. There was no evidence, either, khat the coal alleged by Colesby to exist was there. Livingston was the only person in a position to know whether it was so or not. lie nlso commented mi the fact that Colesby did not avail himself of Livingston's invitation to come and inspect the books to ascertain the amount of coal sold. Air. Weston contended that the lbs (id had been traced to defendant's possession, but had not been paid over to defendant. The evidence clearly showed that Livingston was responsible to Colcishy for the value of the harness. There was no such thing, either, as a "conditional" promissory note, as quoted by counsel for the defeiice. Judgment was reserved.