ABOUT A BILLIARD SALOON.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXV, Issue 3818, 2 May 1913, Page 3

ABOUT A BILLIARD SALOON.

DISPUTE OVER AX AGREEMENT. CLAIM .FOR BILLIARD BALLS, I A dispute 'concerning an agreement over the purchase of a business was the subject of a civil case before Mr. \\ . A. Barton, S.M., yesterday, the parties being Charles Saunclry Read, plaintiff (Mr. Bright) v. Charles Alexander Phillips defendant (Mr. Barnard). I'he statement of claim set forth that it was agreed on Ala.evh 10 that plaintiff should purchase ftsom defendant on March .10. a billiard saloon as a going concern and the, stock-in-trade for £4OO, possession to be given on ARiroh 17; and it was alleged that defendant removed a set- of snooker halls valued at £lO 10s and a .set of billiard balls rallied at £2 10s; wherefore plaintiff claimed possession of these articles or £l9, and damages tor detention amounting to £1 Charles Saundry Read said he approached defendant with regard to the business, and defendant asked for £4OO, which was agreed on. The agreement produced was signed by witness and Phillips, giving witness possession on March 17. Defendant made no reservation of articles from khe sale, and did not arrango about taking S.TVay any snooker or billiard balls. He_ did not personally know that the Snooker and billiard balls wore on the premises on March 10. Deieiidant had refused to give up these articles. Re-examined. plaintiff said he bought the business at a “walk in. ! walk out’’ price, and gave no permission for the removal of anv goods after March 10. M illia.ni Fox, billiard marker, said that the snokoor balls in question were in use between the 10th and toe 17th. On tlie Friday before Mr Reed took possession on the Monday, Phillips took the snooker balls away, saying that, by arrangement with Air Read, the halls did not ero with the place. On the Saturday Phillips took the billiard balls away. Snooker balls cost £l6 a sot and billiard balls abotit £2 los, and this was about their then value. Mr. Rurnard said defendant's claim that the chattels were to go with the business was as in a list appended to the agreement for the lease and stock-in-trade. The fact that a list was prepared was strong evidence that the parties had agreed as to the chattels. The two sets of balls were extra sets, and not necessary for the business of the saloon. Defendant, in giving evidence, said plaintiff was frequently at his saloon from February to March 10, on which day plaintiff agreed to purchase the business. Witness had one set or billiard baßjs for each table, and one set of snooker bans for the two tables. He kept another set at his house near the .saloon. He had tried to sell them several times. He only used, the’ snooker balls twice in the saloon, and left them there until Marqli 7, when he took them away. He took them away before plaintiff paid a deposit. Witness told plaintiff ho would get one set of snooker balls'and two sets of billiard balls. Witness first met plaintiff on Febraary 24. Defendant, examined by Mr Bright, said that ho had touched nothing in the saloon after Read paid his deposit. Ho took the snooker and billiard balls away separately, taking the snooker balls first. Fox did not join his employ until the 10th, but was on. the .premises frequently before then and it would not be altogether a coincidence that Fox was present on both occasions when the balls were removed. The snooker balls were kept in the sideboard at home, and were taken, to the isaloon only on occasions. Tha balls were in the house a. week or more before the 17tli. His Worship, after reviewing the facts, said that the question was as to whether the articles claimed for comprised part of the stock-in-trade From the evidence, it appeared that when the agreement was entered into, plaintiff did nob know what was in the place. A schedule was made of the goods to he included in the agreement. The question, therefore, was ns to whether the snooker and billiard balls were part of the stock. His Worship was of opinion that they were, and he gave judgment for the amount claimed, to be reduced to 10s nil return of the property witlnr" M hours, with damages (10s), cost*' if. solicitor’s fee (£1 11s), andat the IF* expenses (8s) /ding 00. | "—-Minselves a I