KETT V. GODBY.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1277, 13 December 1884, Page 3

KETT V. GODBY.

In the Supreme Court, Timaru, yesterday, Mr J. D, Kett, of the Gmsvenor Hotel, sued Mr M. J. Godby, solicitor, Timaru, for £550, the amount being dne for catering for the supper and ball recently given in honor of the youngest of the Rhodes' family coming of age. The evidence of the plaintiff showed that he had beenengaged to cater for the ball. He said ! They impressed upon me the necessity for carrying everything out in a firstclass manner. They told me it was to be a ball supper in celebration of the coming of age.of the youngest Mr Rhodes. There would be between 300 and 400 people present. The glassware, cutlery, etc., were nil to be in keeping with the pupper, which was to be a first-class one. I was to provide the tables and all accessories, they providing some of the flowers. The menu, -produced, was printed, and submit ed to Mr Godby, not merely the list, hut the cards also. He approved of them. I hud to purchase the table appointments, iDcludiog cutlery, linen, crockery, satin and laces, etc. 1 could not get these things in Timaru. I hired the cut-glass dishes. I bought 70 yards of the best linen table napkins, etc. I paid £7O for the cutlery, and £4O or £SO for glass, besides -supplying what I had in my hotel, and some more that 1 hired. I employed thirty waiters, nine of whom came from Dunedio. The waiters cost me, for wages and board, £4B. There were 25 Timaru ■waiters, and thuy cost me £SO. I employed four cooks for a fortnight, £lO for the first one, and £l6 for the other three. I paid £5Ol odd.

Hib Honor : Have you made out any statement of your charges for your guidance 1 Witness produced "a private statement of his charges, showing a total of £566 19s 9d, and this was put in as evidence. Witness continued, and after giving fuller particulars said he gave away to poor people what was left. Mr Godby knew of that. The balance nov7 claimed was £lB5 - • • •*, After some further examination Mr Joynt, who appeared for the defendant, asked His Honor's leave to confer with his client. If this statement had been furnished before there "would have been no trouble, for his client had no desire to keep back one shilling of an honest claim. This .was the first time they had ever seen details.

Leave having been granted, and the conference held, the examination of witness was renewed. His evidence not having been shaken, Mr Joynt said that after consulting with his client he had come to the conclusion to accept judgment for the full amount of claim, but plaintiff's refusal to produce items had given rise to all the litigation, and he hoped the fact would not' be forgotten by His Honor in computing the costs. His Honor said the charge might appear to be a large one, but in his opinion it was not, when all circumstances were taken into consideration. In places like Christchurch or Wellington, large centres of population, where all the appliances were available for providing such festivities, the prices would of course be less. It was weli-known that the charge for an ordinary ball supper was £l. In Timaru the same thing or a more special thing, where cart blanche was given to the caterer, might cost £1 10s per head or more, and in the Chatham Islands, for instance, the charge would be perhaps £3 per head. He could not doubt the reasonableness of the trade in not supplying items or the fairness of the charges, as it was well known that such a thing as supplying items for a banquet was very difficult.

Mr Holmes, who appeared for plaintiff asked His Honor's permission to retire for a few moments and consult with his client on the question of costs. After the conference the plaintiff agreed to take £SO costs, and judgment was given accordingly for the £550 and £SO costs.