MISSING LAWN MOWER.

Gisborne Times, Volume XLV, Issue 3996, 31 July 1915, Page 3

MISSING LAWN MOWER.

CL ATM FOR ITS RKCOVKRY. .1 LDCMi IXT FOR PLAINTIFF. Albert Wilkinson, cab proprietor, proceeded against Albert Bertie R'durave, cycle mechanic, at the Magistrate's Court, Yesterday, claiming possession of a lawn mower, alleged to have been entrusted to the care ot do- : fondant in April, 1914. for repairs, or its value, £B 19s. in case the mower could not be returned. The .statement of claim set- out that the defendant or his servant instead of returning to the plaintiif Ins own lawn mower repaired handed a dtfioiout mower. The paint iff subsequent- , ly discovered that the mower handed to him was not his own, and ofleied to return it to the detenlant. who iequested the plaintiif to use the same while he endeavored to i inco the whereabouts of the plaintitLs own mower. The n'MVndant lad failed t-o return plaintiff's mower, though repeated application laid been made- for it. Defendant was to return the mower lent to him b.v dcLuda-vt. Mr T. Alston Coleman appeared for . plaintiif. and Mr L. T. Burnard for' defendant. The plaintiff gave evidence setting ; out the facts as stated m the. state- j mVnt of claim. Mr Barnard, for the defence, said that phiintilf’s case was a very flimsy one. Ho had nroduivd no evidence showing what kind of a machine he . owned. li any mistake had been * made pliuntifl was clearly as muon to blame as defendant. Albert Bertie Redgrave, the defendant, said that it was the practice in bis simp to label all machines which were brought in for renairs. He personally labelled pa inti IF s machine and marked on the tag the renairs required to be done. He bad in the shoo at the same time two similar machines from Nicholls and Crillilhs. hut these were labelled with that firm’s own labels and the name of the respective owners. It was impossible for a mistake to have occurred. T.o His Worship: The machine at the shop now was plaini ill’s. By Air Coleman : Witness did not tell’plaintiff that lie was not in the habit of labelling machines. He had labelled machines over since he had ■ been in business. P’a'otdl’s story was a pure fabric-nil.;’. Mr Coleman said Bus was a serious : allegation against the plaintiff. He asked His Worship for permission to have the machine brought into Court i u order that it could he idonitfiod. Defendant said be would have to send a carrier for lbe machine. Mr Burnard said this would not- be done at defendant’s expense. _ Mr Coleman: Wo are not going to any expense. Mr Burnard: Neither am i. Albert Sutton, mechanic, m the employ of defendant, also gave evi- . donee. ~ His Worship said that on the evidence lie must find that tno macliiiH which was returned to Maintiff was not his machine. Judgment would be for plain tiff for €2 10s. with costs , £1 12s. i i