MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 7 November 1917, Page 6

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

.NEW PLYMOUTH SITTING.

A sitting of the Magistrate's Court was made yesterday before Mr. A. Crooke, S.II. CIVIL CASES. Judgment by default was given for plaintiffs in the following undefended cases: — F. W. Wilkie (Mr. A. H. Johnstone) v. Daniel Murphy, for £23 IBs, costs £■# Is: Westport Coal Company (Mr. ,1. E. Wilson), v. Norman Hastings, for £ll 13s Bd. cosh £1 ISs (Id; Smart Bros. (Mr. P. E. Wilson) v. F. 11. Washbourne, for £ll 14s. costs £1 10s (id. In a ease Thorburn and Thorburn, electrical engineers, Auckland (Mr. E. E. Wilson) v. F. TT. Washbourne, an order was made that the amount sued for, £4 Is, should be paid on or before November i), in default, five days' imprisonment.

A TIMBER DISPUTE. The contracting Ann of Kyngdon and Douch, New Plymouth, sued Messrs. Chappell and Woolley, contractors, Auckland, for £7, being the value of certain timber .belonging to the plaintiff firm which, it was alleged, had been sold by the defendants or their agents. Mr. A. H. Johnstone outlined the facts of the case. In January, Ifllfl, the plaintiff's were em,ployed by Messrs. Chappell and Woolley to supply broken stone for concrete making Everybody's Theatre. The stone was-deliver-ed at the back of the theatre from Powderham street, and the excavations made for the building necessitated the erection of a platform on which the stone could be delivered, and this was done by Kvngdon and Doueh. After about 100 cubic yards of stone had been delivered it was decided that the stone was not suitable, and delivery was stopped. The defendants agreed tluit the platform should remain standing, and it was afterwards used.by the next contractor, and remained standing until the building was finished. The two firms then came to an arrangement that the platform should be dismantled and stacked in the yard together with .some other ing. Subsequently an auction sale of this scaffolding was held by Chappell and Woolley, but the timber from the platform was not disposed of. It was later bought by A. A. Renner, of Wellington, who was then constructing the A.M.P. building. The plaintiffs claimed £7 as the value of the timber, which originally cost £!>. Mr. C. 0. Kyngdon was then called and gave evidence on 'similar lines. Cross- examined by Mr. Hutchen, witness said that action was taken against Renner and Co., but it had been held over for the present. The plaintiffs were not sure whom they should prdceed against. W. M. Falconer, secretary of the Taranaki Amusements Co., said that after the completion of the building operations a good deal of timber was left lying about which blocked the exit on to Powderham street. The Borough Council ordered its removal, and it was arranged to selj the timber by auction. Moreover, as the section was open to the public, much of the timber had been taken. He had watched the sale on behalf of the defendants. Four lots of timber were not sold, as he did not consider that a fair price had been offered. Kyngdon's timber was not sold. Subsequently Kyngdon came to him, and stated that his timber had been sold. That was' the first he had heard of the matter, and he repudiated all responsibility and advised him to get into touch with Chappell and Woolley.

Under cross-examination, witness stal - ed that the list of timber to be auctioned, made out by the defendant's foreman. did not include the timber from the dismantled platform. Mr. T. 11. Bates had suggested thai Mr. Eenner would buy the unsold lots, but had no authority to sell any that was not included in the list.

Mr. T. H. Bates, architect, gave evidence that Pienner had 'bought the oddments of timber left after the sale at a price of £4, but he could not say if Kyngdon's timber was sold at this time or not.

Mr. Hutchen contended that the claim was simply one of conversion, but it was not proved that there, had been any conversion 'by 1 the defendants or their agents. It could not be contended that the timber was sold by auction, and Mr. Falconer had merely authority to sell four lots which did not include the plaintiff's timber. If it had been disposed of at all it was not by his clients or by a person acting with their authority. A. J. Goode, foreman for Chappell and Woolley, said that the list he had made out certajnly did not include the plaintiff contractors' timber, which was stacked separately. His Worship said the plaintiffs must be non-suited, as it was not proved that the plaintiffs' timber had been sold by authority of the defendants.* Costs amounting to £3 9s were awarded defendants.