CIVIL CASES.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1664, 16 September 1887, Page 2

CIVIL CASES.

Blown v Aahburton Woollen Manufacturing Company, claim £91 15s. ->- Mr Crisp for plaintiff, Mr Purnell for the defendants. This was a oas® m which the plaint ff, a commercial traveller, sued the defendant Company for travelling expanses and commission on ordera received by him for them The caese promises to be a very lengthy one, the croas-f xitnination of the plaintiff not being; concluded at that sitting of the Court.— The plaintiff's statement was to the following effect :— Ha had been a commercial traveller £0 years In New Zealand and three years m Kn gland and Iceland. The usual rate of pay m England was £53 or 30 j a day, according to the ground to be gone over In June last witness received a letter from Mr Atkinson, the manager of the Factory, and m consequence of which he came to ABhburton. This was m reference to a trip to the North Island, for which the directors had voted £25 as expenses, with 1\ per cent commission on all sales. Wit ness told Mr Atkinson that £25 was too lit fc'o to do the North Island trip on, and three weeks w&b not long enough, but that witness would do his best, and iif the trips were suco- asful witness would expect to be seen right m the matter of his expenses. This was Agreed to. Witness was given a list of the merchants to be called upon. On arrival at Auckland witness found that the samples wh : ch had betn arranged to be sent by the same steamer as witness had travelled m bad not arrived. Witness lost a week m consequence. Directly the samples arrived witness went to business and secured orders from every customer whose came he had been supplied with, except one whom he did not deem it necessary to call upon, and one other. Witness telegraphed from Auckland m regard to the loss of time. When witness finished his business m Wellington, ho telegraphed to the Company asking if he should do Nelson, as he had then been away four weeks. He got a reply m the affirmative He went to Nelson and secured a number of orders. He was away 36 days m all, for which be charged £1 8s 4d, which included everything, and was a very reasonable charge. When witness came back some of the directors and shareholders complimented him on the results of his North. Island trip, and shortly afterwards he was asked to go to Dunedin. He was told by the Manager to see Mr Jameson re expenses Mr Jameson handed him a cheque for £6*. Witness looked at ib and stid it was no good. He told Mr Jameson that bis expeaie 1 m the North Island were 23a 4d a day. Mr Jameson said if the £6 was not sufficient to write for more. Witness was away 19 days and he charged £1 3s 6d a day t which was moat reasonable. Witness had been instructed to endeivor to settle a dispute with a customer, which occupied considerable time, and over which he incurred a good deal of expense m the matter of telegrams. Wjtneßs sold a total value of goods of £4000, and there waß not a single order that was not a fair trade risk. The witness detailed the endeavors be had made after returning from his Dunedin trip to seoure a settlement. Mr Purnell croas-axamined at bo me length, but at about half-past four the Court decided to adjourn for a week.