WAIAPU TEMPERANCE REFORM LEAGUE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2687, 17 December 1909, Page 2

WAIAPU TEMPERANCE REFORM LEAGUE.

CLAIM FOR ADVERTISING.

At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning, before Mr. AV. A. Barton, S.M., Jones and Gaudin, formerly proprietors of the “Gisborne f limes t y (Mr. Gaudin) sued AVm. Douglas Lysnar (Mr. Kirk) tor £4 18s 6d for printing and advertising in connection with the AA ai. apu Temperance Reform League. AValtcr Jas. Payne Gaudin, one of the plaintiffs gave evidence that the account was opened by the defendant. The defendtuft was the only one prominently .before the public in connection with the AVaiapu Temperance Reform League.. Application was made eailv in 1906 for payment of the disputed account. Defendant replied he had to see the Rev. Herbert Williams. AVitness asked twice for payment in 1906 and saw him about a year later and received the same answer. Defendant did not dispute his liability till about three weeks ago, when plaintiff went to go through the accounts with defendant. Defendant then produced a receipt for his own general expenses and the election campaign for J9O(L They were quite apart from the AA raiapu Temperance League. To Mr. Kirlc: The accounts were debited in the books to the AVaiapu Temperance Reform League (AV. D. Lysiiar). There was another. entry in the book for defendant’s general account. The : accounts were kept separate because the defendant asked that they should be. He said he would be responsible lor the AVaiapu , Temperance Reform League. Defendant produced a general receipt for £4l 5s when witness went to see him three weeks ago. The amount had nothing to do with the A\ 7 aiapu Temperance Reform League. AVitness believed defendant formed the League, and he was the only one plaintiffs saw in connection with the finances.

The ledgers in connection with the account were produced, and the first entry in the first ledger, in connection with the Temperance Reform League did not' have defendant’s name after it. nntinuing, witnes* said that he was sure the' .defendant mentioned . the name of the Rev. Herbert Williams when witness saw him in. 1906. About three weeks ago, when witness saw defendant he was ordered out of defendant’s office. Addressing the court Mr. Kirk said that the evidence' for the plaintiffs was conclusively against them. Defendant would not 'have come to the Court had there not been a matter of principle? involved. Defendant had paid large snms to plaintiff in connection with the League. There was only, one demand made for the amount claimed and there should have been something to show why the balance had been left over when the accounts were settled. W. D. Lysnar, defendant,, deposed that he settled' with the plaintiffs for all money he owed on November, 1906. He had had a previous settlement for al] money due on February sth, 1906. £25 odd was for the Waiapu League. Witness was in no way liable for the accounts of the League, but he had voluntarily paid all moneys to the plaintiffs as far as claims were made. ..According to his ledger lie had paid 'them in all £45 5s in connection with the League, and had the present claim been put forward it would have been paid with the others. He had never received an account for the amount claimed, and had never acknowledged his liability. • • To Mr. Gaudin: Witness denied absolutely that he had said he would have to see the Rev. Herbert Williams about the account. Mr. Kirk did not address the Court, and judgment was given for the defendant, with £1 Is costs.