PLEASE NOTE: William Gittens, being of African descent and born in Barbados, was described in a number of ways by the New Zealand press of his day. Some words used to describe him are no longer acceptable. I present them as they were published.
A negro named William Gittens, an able seaman on the steamer Waiwera, was charged with assaulting the chief cook, C. Payne, and the second cook, F. Roberts, on Monday. Evidence was given which went to show that accused had attempted to take some hot water from the galley. The cooks objected, and in the scuffle, which ensued, the second cook's arm was broken, and his head injured. The Bench decided that the parties were equally to blame. Accused in taking the water was following the usual custom. The case was dismissed. -Press, 17/1/1907.
The fact that a certain city councillor is alleged to have brought his influence to bear to have a coloured man dismissed from the ranks of those employed on the reconstruction of the George street tramway track is expected to cause some discussion at to-morrow night's meeting of the council. -Otago Daily Times, 13/7/1909.
"A MAN'S A MAN FOR A' THAT."
THE DISMISSED COLORED MAN.
REINSTATED TO-DAY.
The circumstances surrounding the dismissal of the colored laborer from the George street tramway works was discovered by the City Council last night. It will be remembered that public attention was drawn to the incident by a paragraph in Monday night's issue of the 'Star.' From the discussion last night it was clear that public talk had put the blame on a councillor who defended himself at great length.
Rev. V. G. Bryan King wrote re a Star' paragraph stating "that a colored man had been discharged from work under control of the Council owing to nationality." It appeared to be an injustice. The writer understood that the man referred to was named Gittens. If so, he would like to mention that he had known the man since his arrival in Dunedin, and he had always found him a highly-respectable and willing worker.
The Mayor suggested that the letter be referred to the Tramways Committee for report.
Cr. Douglas said it had come to his ears (unfortunately not officially) that he was responsible tor the matter. He strongly objected to it going to the Committee. It was a matter that affected him personally, both as a councillor and in a private capacity. He wanted it thrashed out right away. It would be unfair to hang it up for a fortnight. There was a tremendous amount of talk amongst the public, and his name was the one attached to it.
The matter was subsequently discussed along with the Tramway Committee's report.
A report of an inquiry which had been made by the city electrical engineer and the chairman of the Tramways Committee was read by the town clerk. The report stated that Ganger L'Estrange, who had been examined, said that the work of the man in question had been equal to that of others engaged in the work, and there were were no objections on the part of the men engaged as to working side by side with Gittens, who was a British subject. The chairman of the Tramways committee had thereupon directed that color was not to interfere with the employment of men upon that work. Gittens was a British subject, and if an opportunity offered he was to be reemployed in that capacity which his ability required.
Another report was read. This was from the city electrical engineer, setting out that Inspector Cross had been given instructions to pay off all incompetent men who did not, in his estimation, come up to the standard required for the work in hand. This rule had been rigidly adhered to, and no exception had ever been made as to race, nationality, color, or any other peculiarity. Further, the report stated that the engineer understood that Cr Douglas went to the works, and stated that white men complained to him that colored men were getting preference over them. The city electrical engineer begged to suggest that the councillor made an error in going to the works, as the complaint should have gone through headquarters.
Cr Douglas chimed that the town clerk had failed in his duty lamentably in not giving him intimation that this matter was coming on. Until yesterday he had not the slightest idea that the local in the paper referred to himself, because, as Mr Cross stated in the engineer's report, he told him when he went on to the works that the man was being paid off for other reasons. He (the speaker) in no way interfered or suggested in any shape or form that the man should have been paid off, even had he still been in employment, he (the speaker) had been unjustly treated by all parties concerned in this matter. The least that was due to him was that the matter should have been brought under his notice. He had got sworn documents, which he read, to prove his innocence that he was in no way responsible for the man being dismissed. The color line was never introduced by him, and he had no knowledge as to who had introduced it.
Cr Burnett, who accompanied Cr Douglas to the works when he took the statements to prove his innocence, said that Cr Douglas had nothing whatever to do with the matter, so far as the evidence went in regard to the man's dismissal. Cr Shacklock was sorry that Cr Douglas had taken so seriously. If he was in public life a few years longer he would have many false accusations made against him. That was the experience of most of them. To his mind Cr Douglas made a mistake in speaking to anybody on the works. If he had wanted to find out whether a colored man was employed on the works he could have done so by merely walking along the footpath and having a look. However, it was not a very serious thing at all. Cr Tapley said that Cr Douglas had sufficiently vindicated himself. He was in no way responsible for the man being dismissed. Cr Douglas had been unjustly drawn into it.
Cr Cole was also pleased that Cr Douglas had cleared himself. He knew the colored man in question well. He was one of the most decent men in the City. He was a naturalised British subject, a member of St. Peter's Church, a leader of the choir, and a member of the Independent Order of Oddfellows. He was glad he was not discharged on account of his color.
The Mayor said he regretted that he had not communicated with Cr Douglas, but he had been so busy that he had overlooked it. He did not agree with Cr Shacklock; that Cr Douglas was wrong in what he did. He would say, however, that it would be an improper thing for any councillor to interfere with any man in the Corporation service.
Cr White wanted to know why the man was put off the works. An injustice had been done the man, who was doing a quarter more work than some of the white men there There were men on that work who should never have been there. He hoped that the mayor would see that the colored man got justice, and was reinstated.
Cr Keast said that Cr Douglas erred in going on the works and interfering. Something must have transpired in regard to this color line for a councillor to go and ask if there was a colored man employed on the track.
Cr Douglas said that his reason for asking the ganger if there were colored men on the works was because he had walked the whole length of the works and back, and there were no colored men there.
The next business was then proceeded with.
The workman in question was reinstated to-day. -Evening Star, 15/7/1909.
BARBADOES BABU
FRIGHTENS FRAIL FEMALES.
"Go 'Way, You Black Man!"
Gittens Gets it Hot.
William Gittens is a British: subject although he is as black as the ace of spades, being a native of Barbadoes. He has been in Dunedin for some years, and has suffered considerably because of his color. When the City Council were laying down their trams he came prominently before the public, being the central figure in a mewspaper controversy. William was employed on the tramway construction works, but certain parties with influence thought it was a shocking shame that a black man should be allowed to work among white navvies, and William was given the order of the sack. At present William lives at Woodhaugh, and when there's nothing else doing he
GOES ROUND WITH A HORSE AND TRAP buying such material as marine stores stock — bottles, old metal, etc. On September 30 he was engaged in this occupation, and he made a call at No. 29 Princes-street, Musselburgh, which is tenanted by William James Moody. In the yard he saw about half a hundredweight of old lead pipes and made up his mind to endeavor to purchase them. Just then the lady in No. 27 (Mrs Berry )looked over the fence, and William asked her if Mrs Moody was in. Mrs Berry, desiring to rid Mrs Moody of the black man's company, said she was ill in bed, and William turned to leave, but as he passed what he reckoned was the bedroom window he knocked at it for the purpose of leaving a message about the pipes, and Mrs Moody then appeared at the door. Being told that no business was to be done, William proceeded to Mrs Berry's and asked if she had anything in his line. He was told "No," in
A VERY SNAPPY VOICE, but, before he could leave the place, his attention was drawn to certain remarks made by Mesdames Berry and Moody, who were talking over the dividing picket fence. William thought they had said something uncomplimentary about him, and he turned back and said that if the females had any disparaging remarks to make about him, he would be obliged if they would unburden themselves of them to his face. Mrs Berry said she would get her husband and sool him on to William, and she went inside for the purpose, Mrs Moody vanishing about the same time. Then William began to express his opinion of the two ladies, and did so with the help of such a string of unpublishable epithets, that he was called on on Monday to face Magistrate Bartholomew on a charge of having used indecent language within hearing of passers-by. He was defended by Lawyer Scurr, who entered a plea of not guilty.
Mary Jane Moody told the court that William was very polite to her when asking about the pipes. The only reason she could give why William got wild was that he had overheard Mrs Berry say to her that previously to her coming out William had his eyes on the pipes.
After finishing his examination, Sub-Inspector Phair remarked to the S.M.: I would draw your attention to the fact that
ACCUSED HAS BEEN STARING at the witness all the time she has been in the box. It must be very awkward for her.
Counsel: What's that? Just because a man has a black skin may he not look people in the face? It's the worst piece of oppression I know of!
The S.M. (to William): You had better turn round.
Annie Harriot Berry confessed in examination that her remark that Mrs Moody was ill was merely intended to get rid of William — for worlds she wouldn't have let him know that she was in. When Mrs Moody came out first she was "in a fearful state," and, during the following conversation, she said she could hardly stand for fright. Mrs Moody also gave details of a terrible fright she had got the night before at the theatre because of a man who was "far from nice looking." When William began his language she (Mrs Berry)
NEARLY FELL DOWN PROM FRIGHT. Gittens then got going with his version of the tale. He said he was a married main with three children. William is pretty verbose, and in describing his visit to Moody's he said: "I knocked three times, but my knocks were unheard; yet I presumed that the tenant would be in as I heard somebody moving about." When he went to see Mrs. Berry she was "blacking a pair of 'boots by the look of it." Just as he was leaving Mrs Berry's yard he heard her remark to her neighbor: "I could see he
HAD HIS EYES ON SOMETHING. He spoke to me, but that was only a blind — he was just watching his chance and would have taken the pipes only he saw me." Just before Mrs Berry left to get her husband she called William a black something or other, whereupon he retaliated by telling the frightened female that she was "a ____ object." That was all the "language" he had used, and he didn't say it very loud. In reply to the Sub-Inspector, William said he returned to Berry's because he heard Mrs Berry
"TANTALISING" HIS CHARACTER. As to the evidence of the ladies, it was "hardly visible" to him that they should tell such lies as they had — the couldn't "reelise" it. Mr Moody had cabled on William's wife and had told her that, if he had been a white man there would have been no trouble, but a black man was ugly enough to frighten anybody. Being informed by the S.M. that he was satisfied that
"A FILTHY AND DISGUSTING TORRENT OF LANGUAGE" had been used, counsel put in a plea for a monetary penalty. He told how William had borne the best of good characters to date, and was supported in this by the Rev. M. B. G. King, who didn't know anything against Gittens, although he had known him for two years.
The S.M. said it was hardly a case for a monetary penalty, but as William bore a good character, and apparently thought he had a grievance, he would be fined £5. -NZ Truth, 5/11/1910.
The Conciliation Commissioner (.Mr ,]. R. Tiiggs) sat- this morning to determine a depute, aud to arrange terms for an award (if possible) between the Dunedin Brewers, Bottlers, Bolt ie-washers, and Aerated Waters' Industrial Union of Workers, and the large number of firms cited. It- was decided to strike out of the citation the firms of Moffntt and Co. (Cromwell), Chemical Union. A. Smith, and H. F. Stevens (Dunedin) ; and the following parties were added to the dispute:—Mackcrras and Hazlett, R. Wilson and Co.. Thomson and Co. (Tnvercrgill). Wilson Malt Extract Manufacturers, Irvine and Steven-son, Well Park Brewery. Gregg and Co.. James Neil, •Tc-hn Cleary, William Gittens, and Samuel Evans. No settlement had been agreed upon at 2.30 p.m. A weed's trial of the new parcels post system in the United States resulted in the sending of so large, a number of packages that the Postal Department was unable to supply the demand for the distinctive stamps, without which packages cannot be transmitted. Thousands of telegrams have been r
THE COURTS TODAY
CITY POLICE COURT
Wounding. — William Gittens (for whom Mr Hawkins appeared) was charged with wounding Edward James Skinner with intent to cause him grievous bodily harm, and was further remanded until to-morrow week, the same Bail as before being allowed. -Evening Star, 12/1/1912.
City Police Court
Alleged Stabbing Case. — William Gittens who appeared on remand, was charged with on December 16, wounding one Edward James Skinner, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. Mr A. O. Hanlon appeared for the accused, and Chief Detective Herbert conducted the prosecution. — The complainant, Skinner, said he was a butcher on board the Moana, which arrived from Lyttelton about noon on December 16. About 4.15 on the same afternoon he saw the accused on board, and heard him say, whilst passing the door of his own shop, “There’s that dirty butcher again." Without saying anything in reply he went out of the shop and struck accused on the head. The latter then remarked, “I’ll fix you” and walked off, returning four or five minutes later. They both started fighting simultaneously and kept it up for two or three minutes. Witness was most emphatic in his assertion that he got the better of it, repeating the fact several times with an increasing degree of satisfaction. Continuing, he said that accused then went away, and Mr Paul, the second officer, came along, and witness found that he had been cut in the shoulder and was bleeding freely from several places. The police and Dr Evans were sent for, and the latter ordered witness’s removal to the Hospital, where his wounds were dressed. During the encounter he did not notice anything in accused hand. Owing to his injuries he was incapacitated for work for a fortnight. He had known accused for about 12 months, as he was in the habit of coming on board when the ship was in port. About two months ago they had a difference over some matter. — Cross-examined by Mr Hanlon, witness stated that on a previous occasion he accused Gittens of buying ship’s stores and reported the matter to the chief officer. He might have applied certain offensive remarks to accused when he threatened to get him put ashore for buying ship's stores. He admitted having sold an article to a white man for 6s. having previously refused to sell it to accused for a like amount, and welcomed Mr Hanlon's suggestion that, so far from being annoyed, he was pleased when he discovered that the former was acting on behalf of Gittens. At this point, however, witness’s voice rather lacked a genuine ring. In answer to a further question, he stated that, on inquiry, the chief officer was satisfied that the accused had not bought ship’s stores. Ever since the Johnson-Jeffries fight witness had disliked the black, and accused’s black face annoyed him. It was the real Jack Johnson business, and though accused nearly came out on top, he was determined not to let black conquer in that fight. — Mr Hanlon: “You felt you were upholding the honour of the white race?” —Witness (unhesitatingly): “Yes,” and the court was plainly amused. In conclusion, witness stated that during the progress of the fight he was not aware that he was being wounded with a knife. All the same, he would be sorry to see the accused sent to gaol over the matter. — Dr Evans, who attended to Skinner's injuries, gave evidence as to the number, nature, position, and depth of the various wounds on his head and shoulders, and stated that an ordinary pocket-knife such as the one produced, could have inflicted them. — William Paul, second officer on the Moana, stated that on the date in question he had been attracted by loud voices, and on going in the direction from which they proceeded he met the accused. On being asked what was the matter he began to cry loudly, whereupon witness ordered him ashore. He then went on to see Skinner, whom he found bleeding profusely. He saw nothing of the actual assault. — Alexander Campbell, chief officer on the vessel, said that on December 16 accused made some complaint to him about the butcher, but he refused to listen to him, and told him to transact any business he had peacefully or get ashore. As accused began to get excited he ordered him to leave the ship. If he had gone in the way directed there would have been no need for him to pass the butcher’s shop, and the subsequent trouble would have been avoided. — Constable McMillan said that on the evening of December 15 he went to accused’s house in Woodhaugh. He said to him: “It is alleged you stabbed a man on board the Moana.” Accused replied: “ Well, we had a row. He hit me first several times on the head, and I don’t know what I did. This man Skinner has called me all sorts of names at different times, but I am sorry for what has happened.” On being searched at the Police Station in the presence of Detective Connolly, accused said that he had a knife in his hand at the time of the row, and on returning together to his house they found the pocket-knife produced in court in his overcoat. — This evidence was corroborated by Detective Connolly, who added that he saw fresh bloodstains on the knife. Accused told him that when assaulted by Skinner he had been using the knife, and in an endeavour to close it he had shut it on his hand, cutting his right thumb. This cut had been noticed by witness. — Mr Hanlon said he had no hesitation in asking for the dismissal of the case, as no jury would convict accused on the evidence offered, no malicious intent having been proved, and the man having acted only in self-defence. — The Magistrate said that when a knife was used in a quarrel the person using it should only escape, if at all, with difficulty. The present case was a very peculiar one. The complainant had brought the trouble on himself, and he had got no more than he deserved. He was quite certain that no jury would convict accused, as there was only Skinner’s evidence as to what occurred in regard to the actual fight. The wounds were all of a trivial and superficial nature, with one exception, and that was not dangerous. That accused had not attempted to use the knife with malicious intent was proved by the evidence showing that he endeavoured to close it during the initial stages of the fight. Under the circumstances, therefore, he felt it his duty to dismiss the case, which he accordingly did. — The Chief Detective said that if the witness Skinner had been in his normal condition he would have given his evidence in a much more intelligible manner, and perhaps have put a different complexion on the case. He therefore, asked that his expenses be disallowed, a request to which the magistrate acceded. -Otago Daily Times, 22/1/1912.
INDECENT LANGUAGE.
NEGRO CHARGED.
A SUBSTANTIAL PENALTY.
In the City Police Court, before Mr W. R. Haselden, S.M., yesterday morning, William Gittens, a coloured person, was charged with using indecent language on the Jetty street wharf on January 18. —Mr Hanlon, who appeared for the accused, said he pleaded "Guilty," and elected to be dealt with summarily.
Sub-inspector Foully (producing a written slip): This is the language complained of.
Mr Hanlon (consulting the accused): That is not the language he says he used.
The accused said he used some language, but did not consider it was obscene. He would not think of using the language alleged by the police. It was a shame.
Frank Thrann, night watchman on the wharf, said that at 5.45 p.m. on the date in question he saw the accused on the wharf. He was gathering up some loose pieces of coal and putting them in a bag. Witness told him to stop, and the accused then used the language complained of to him. The words were the same as those shown in the police report.
Henry Maxwell, plumber, corroborated the evidence of-the previous witness, but stated that there were not many people about.
Thomas Brookes, railway lifter, said he had heard the language complained of, and there were some pretty severe expressions. Accused used one epithet about 100 times, and was swearing at a terrible rate.
Mr Hanlon said the accused had pleaded guilty to using indecent language, and the expressions themselves did not make a great deal of difference. He certainly used some bad language, for which, no doubt, he should be punished. A fact that should be taken into consideration, however, was that there were apparently only two or three men about, and he was evidently smarting because he had been forbidden to take away the coal on account of his being a negro. The accused had a wife and five children, and was simply a marine dealer or hawker.
The Magistrate: Is this the man who was before the court some months ago on a charge of stabbing a white man?
The Sub-inspector: Yes.
The accused said that ever since that time people seemed to have shown a prejudice against him. If he was given another chance he would wash his hands of Dunedin. He did not use the language complained of.
His Worship said the accused was quite wrong as to people being prejudiced against him. Only cranks or abnormal persons took up that attitude. The accused would be fined £5, in default one month's imprisonment. No costs would be allowed. -Otago Daily Times, 1/2/1913.
OVER 34,000 SOFT DRINKS
AT TAHUNA CAMP.
In the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr Widdowson, S.M., a case of interest to aerated water makers was brought on. Lanes, Ltd., sued William Gittens, hawker, for the possession of 80 dozen aerated water bottles, value £9 10s, detained by him since the 11th November.
Mr Calvert, appearing for the plaintiffs, said that the bottles in question belonged to Lanes, and were gathered at the late Tahuna camp. The question for the Court was whether these bottles were still the property of Lanes. It would be shown that there was no sale of the bottles according to the custom of the trade. Since the case of Thomson and Co. v. Phillips the trade had made it clear that the bottles were not sold. A deposit was charged to ensure their safe return. It would be shown in evidence that Gittens admitted that he had in his possession about 60 dozen of Lanes' bottles, supplied to caterers at the late Tahuna camp, and that both caterers used their best endeavors to collect all the bottles, but could not. It would also be shown that Lanes had not parted with the ownership of the bottles either by sale or acquiescence.
J. P. Lane, one of the plaintiffs, said that his bottles cost wholesale 2s 4d per dozen. They had thousands of bottles in the hands of customers. He always took the bottles into stock. The custom was to take a deposit from customers of ls a dozen. The deposit paid was put against the bottles that were out. When the bottles were returned he credited the customer with the shilling. Everybody in the trade followed that practice. Every invoice bore a notice to the effect that the bottles were not sold. His charge for aerated waters was 1s 6d per dozen. He supplied Moody and Kroon for the Tahuna Park camp. To Mr Moody he supplied 1,257 dozen, and 1,093 were returned; deficit, 164. To Kroon he supplied 1,585 dozen, and 1,318 were returned; deficit, 266. There were 430 dozen short on the two. He allowed Gittens 6d a dozen for bringing the bottles back. Shortly after the camp broke up Gittens called and said he had collected 70 or 80 dozen, but would not bring the bottles in at the usual figure of 6d. He wanted 1s, otherwise he would not bring them in. Witness replied that he would not give 1s.
Mr Bedford, who appeared for defendant, cross-examined this and other witnesses for teo purpose of establishing that the contract was contained in the circular sent round by Lanes, in which they stated that they sold the aerated waters at 2s 6d per dozen, and made an allowance of ls on the return of the empties; that on the caterers' delivery note. Lanes stated that all empties not returned would be charged for; and that it was only on their invoices, after the sale, when sending their account, that they stated that the bottles were not sold.
P. W. J. Moody said that he undertook to supply temperance drinks to the Tahuna camp, and bought from Lanes, the terms being 1s 6d a dozen for the drinks, and 1s a dozen deposit on the bottles. He lost many bottles. He had a man on at 10s a day to collect them, and he arranged with the man in charge of the fatigue party cleaning up the camp, 6d a dozen being allowed. They wanted witness to go for the collected bottles; he said it was their place to bring them to him; and next day five bags of the bottles were gone. Saw Gittens in the ground, and saw his cart there, but did not actually see him collecting. Witness fully understood that he was not buying the bottles.
J. C. Kroon. caterer, said that he had dealt with Lanes for years, and when he bought soft drinks for the camp — he had the tender at £5 a day — he knew he was not buying the bottles There were boys collecting bottles, and he paid them about 6d a dozen. Gittens told witness he had between 60 and 80 dozen. It was Lanes' bottles they were speaking about. Witness offered him 6d a dozen. He said he would not take it. It would be 1s or nothing.
W. E. Lane, a director of the plaintiff company, said that his firm neither bought nor sold bottles in New Zealand. Gittens had been bringing them bottles for years at 6d per dozen as a charge for collecting.
This completed the evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs. Mr Bedford applied for a nonsuit on these grounds: — (l) That the property in these bottles was not proved to be in the plaintiffs; (2) that if the property was held to be in the plaintiffs, then the customers were the mercantile agents according to the Mercantile Law Act, and any disposition through them was protected; (3) that even if the property was in Lanes, and even if their customers were not the mercantile agents, there was no right of immediate possession; (4) that if Lanes were the owners of the bottles, and if their customers were not the mercantile agents, even then Lanes could not recover, because there was no right to immediate possession. Lanes' remedy was only against the customer, and then only when Lanes handed over the shilling.
At this stage the Court adjourned for lunch.
On resuming, Mr Bedford called William Gittens, who deposed that he collected bottles, buying them at 6d and sometimes 9d a dozen, and he returned them to the firms whose names were shown therein. He returned them when he had a good parcel. He had not sold any to Lanes lately. He got 1s a dozen for Thomson's and Ingram's. He told Lanes that he had about 60 dozen of theirs, and said he would take them in if he got the 1s deposit. They had cost him 9d, and he wanted 3d profit. He did not pick up the bottles in Tahuna Park. He got some from persons in the vicinity of Tahuna Park. He had the major part of the 60 dozen before the camp. He got bottles from Ravensbourne, Green Island, and boarding-houses. He did not until recently get more than 6d for lemonades. He never got more than 6d from Lanes, but did not take them many, and none for a while past. He had recently paid 9d in town and 6d in other places, expecting to receive 1s. He did not buy sacks of bottles at Tahuna and did not pick up any.
John R. Roxburgh, fruiterer, also called by Mr Bedford, gave evidence that when he bought from Lanes he received the circular above referred to. It was the custom of the retailers to put 1d on for the bottle. They regarded the bottle as bought from the maker and sold to the consumer.
Legal argument was not finished when the Court rose at 4.30 p.m. It will be resumed at a date to be fixed. -Evening Star, 9/12/1914.
AERATED WATER BOTTLE CASE.
MAGISTRATE’S JUDGMENT.
The only business dealt with at the Magistrate’s Court on the 22nd was the deliverance by Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M., of the reserved judgment in the case Lanes, Limited (Mr Calvert) v. William Gittens (Mr Bedford). This case was heard on December 8, and the plaintiffs sought to recover possession of 80 dozen aerated water bottles, valued at £9 10s, from the defendant. During the hearing it was alleged that these bottles had been collected at the Expeditionary Force camp at Tahuna Park, the real point at issue was whether these bottles, together with their then contents, were sold when delivered to the plaintiffs’ clients at the came.
Mr Widdowson, after reviewing the evidence tendered at the hearing, said that the question whether the property in the bottles remained vested in the plaintiffs or had passed by sale to their customers would mainly depend upon the terms of the contract made by plaintiffs with their customers. The practice was to send out to storekeepers what was called a delivery ticket along with the goods. Storekeepers also received a circular, and in that circular it was stated that henceforth aerated waters would be charged 2s 6d a dozen, and that an allowance of 1s a dozen would be made for all empties returned. On the plaintiff’s invoices there was a memo: “The bottles in this invoice are not sold, although a deposit may have been taken.” But it appeared that this invoice was delivered only to merchants, and was sent monthly to storekeepers, and all those who paid cash never got this invoice at all. So it was evident that the memo on the invoice could not be invoked to supplement the contract evidenced by the delivery ticket. Different circulars were sent out by plaintiffs to different customers — to merchants, hotelkeepers, and storekeepers — and the one to hotelkeepers made it clear that the charge for bottles was by way of deposit, and it was quite evident that so far as hotelkeepers were concerned the property in the bottles did not pass to them. The circular to the storekeepers, however, did not contain any reference to deposit, and he considered that the words on the circular really contained the terms of the contract, and that under this the bottles were purchased along with the aerated waters. Judgment would he for defendant.
Mr Widdowson added that as the plaintiff might wish to appeal, leave to appeal on law would be granted on condition that £2 5s (defendant's costs) he paid by the plaintiffs; and his Worship fixed the security at £l2. -Otago Witness, 30/2/1914.
I.O.O.F. (excerpt)
The half-yearly Installation meeting of Pioneer Lodge was held in the Rattray Street Hall, Bro. F. Walters, NIG., presiding over a good attendance of members and visitors. Unity Lodge paid an official visit. The decease of Bros. W. Gittens and J. H. Dickel was reported. Funeral benefits were passed, and a minute declaring the sympathy of the lodge was recorded to be conveyed to the widows of these brethren. -Evening Star, 12/7/1920.
Amusements
GEORGE STREET SCHOOL HALL.
GRAND BENEFIT CONCERT AND DANCE,
in Aid of the Wife and Eight Children of the late William Gittens, will be held on THURSDAY, JULY 29th, 1920. Chair to be taken at 7.45 by Rev. Vincent King. Admission; Concert, 1s; Dance — Gents 3s, Ladies 1s. -Evening Star, 17/7/1920.
BENEFIT CONCERT AND DANCE
An appreciative audience filled the George Street School Hall on Thursday evening last, the object being a concert and dance. The proceeds were in aid of the wife and eight children of the late Mr William Gittens, of Leith Valley. The chair was taken by the Rev. Vincent King. Miss Hilda Balk gave a pianoforte solo, and also played most of the accompaniments. Songs and duets were contributed by Misses L. Smith and Crighton and Messrs T. Bachop and Reid; songs by Miss V. Balk and Mr G. Bennet; humorous items, Messrs P. McCarthy and J. Deaker; musical monologue, Miss Powell; Paul Reno, juggling act; Sergeant H. R. Cole, lightning sketches; Highland dances, the Misses Lorna Budge and May Hungerford; pipe solo, Master Budge. Encores were general throughout the evening. During the interval the chairman sold Mr Cole's sketches to the highest bidders, thus helping to swell the funds. The concert was followed by a dance, the music being supplied by Messrs Newlands and Gibson, and Mr McCarthy acted as M.C. The concert realised about £30, and subscriptions amounting to £100 have been contributed to the fund. -Evening Star, 31/7/1920.
The Gittens family continued to reside in Patmos Avenue, Leith Valley for a number of years.
No comments:
Post a Comment