MUSIC IN COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XIII, Issue 4215, 10 September 1892, Page 2

MUSIC IN COURT.

. Pownall ut. Gorbett, The Price of a Piano. The case in which Charles Aylmer Pownall, solicitor, claimed Jessie Corbett the sum of £1 7s 6d, the amount of an instalment due on the purchase of a piano over which the plaintiff had a mortgage, was j continued in - the Masterton E.M. Court yesterday ■ afternoon before Colonel iloberts, R.M.

Mr Bunny appeared for the defence. Jessie Corbett, under cross-exam-ination by Mr Pownall, stated : I am not aware whether Campbell bad Bent any money to the Berlin Company before the piano was sold to me. Through Mr Bunny 1 have learned that Campbell has paid the Company for the piano, I did not know this at the last hearing of .the case. When the agent of the Company came to see me he told me not to pay Mr Pownall j any further instalments. I was then placed in a difficulty and did not know whom to pay, Had the agent not interfered I should have continued paying Mr Pownall. The depositreceipt for the 180 paid was given me by Mr Clifford. The receipt is not now' in the same condition as it was when given to me. Tho words" Pot Berlin Piano Company " have since been written in by Clifford at the instigation of tbe agent, The receipt was altered about three months after it was given. As far as the receipt shows, the piano was first of all sold to me by Messrs Campbell and Clifford, Kuowing as 1 do now that Campbell has sent the money to the Company, 1 am certain that the words" William Honry Webb " were erased from the agreement, although the words "agent for the Company" might not have been scratched out. When 1 bought the piano I considered £55 a fair price for it, and had it not been for the interference of the agent the price would not have been complained of, If I had known that Campbell had sent tho money to the Uompany I would not have defended this notion. The facts which have come to my knowledge have entirely changed my views on the matter. By Mr Bunny; Although I found that t had been charged £55 for the piano instead of £45, I would have continued the payments. Campbell and Clifford told me when I bought the piano that they were ngents for the Company, and all along I have thought I was dealing with the Company.

Mr Bunny drew attention to the fact that the agreement wafl not stamped when executed. Mr Pownall said it bad been admitted in evidence that the document was unstamped, The agreement had, however, been used by both parlies, Mr Bunny: I call the attention of the Court officials to the fact that the agreement was not stamped. The witness, further examined by Mr Bunny, statedthntif the Company bad charged her £lO more than they ought she would not have paid. A number of facts connected with the case, one of which was that the Berlin Company had received payment for the piano, were put in by Mr BunDy by consent of Mr Pownall. Mr Bunny staled that the, defence to the claim waß fraud. Since learning the facte Mies Corbett had oflered to pay the balance of £l6 due on the £46 piano, which Mr Pownall had declined to accept, Mr Pownall: But you asked me to pay costs 1 Mr Bunny: Of course, you brought the action,

The legal aspects of the case were' then argued at some length by counsei. Mr Bunnj maintained that on the sworn testimony of the witnesses the piano had been purchased from the company, The agreement had been signed as betweenMisa Corbettand the Company, and the defendant was therefore not estopped from settingup this plea. The party who should be estopped was the plaintiff, He urged that the Bench should take cognizance of the fact that a fraud had been committed by Campbell,

Mr Pownall said ho did not propose : to go into the law connected with 1 fraud. He would show, however, that the fraud had been committed by the other Bide, In the first 1 place the agent of the company had deliberately tampered with the agreei menti Furthermore, counsel for the 1 defendant had trifled with the Court i by withholding the letter admitting the payment of the full amount to the Company. His learned friend had' deliberately concealed facts which should have come before the Court, Misa Corbett had been dragged into the Court for the benefit of the London and Berlin Piano Company. Had the defendant known what documents werein thepossession ofMrßunnyshe would never have gono to Court. What right had the Company to contest this case when they bad been paid for the piano? The action of Campbell in asking £55 for a £45 piano was a smart one, but it was not fraudulent. This kind of thing was done every day in business. Miss Corbett would not hare resisted the claim had she not been misled by the agent, He asked, who else but himself could claim for the piano 1 If he did not get the money, nobody else could, The Court would have been in entire ignorance of the document possessed by Mr Bunny had it not been for an interview which Mr Searl had with him. Counsel for the defence should at any rate have made the offer of £ls before the last hearing of the case. Miss Corbett had been badly advised to go to Court. The whole matter had now changed its aspect, and he contended that the Court had been trifled with, Had Miss Corbett told him that she had been defrauded of £lO in the first instance, he would have foregone this amount. He could not be oharged with an act of injustice towards Miss Corbett. He had taken away the piano at the last sitting of the Court on account of the trickery of the other side. Mr Searl had agreed to pay him the £l6 due on the piano whether he won the case or not, so that he did not stand to lose. He could not ?ee, however, why Miss Corbett should be plunged into litigation just to please the Berlin Cpmpany and enable them to step in and seise the piano. He would ask that'judgment be given for the bare amountof £1 7s 6d due, s& aa toprotect jHissCorbettfrom fufther trickery. Mr Bunny stated that he'iad not read the ,letter from the' Company when he went into' Court in the first instance, Had he done, so he would have advised Mies Corbett differently, although he,.certainly should have | recommended her. to resist the claim. He believed the take his, statement »s • true;:; The docuinent ,bad .not been deliberately concealed 1 from the' Court, Those who knew him during the ' ttos he had been practising in Masteripn' would"agree that he had never rushed : apy person iinto litigation for the purpose of

beeping up coaiß, He could not say this of his learned Iriend. His Worship said he would like to look over the documents produced. Ha would give his decision some day next week.