ASHBURTON—THURSDAY

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1669, 22 September 1887, Page 3

ASHBURTON— THURSDAY

(Before John OlHvier, Esq , R.M , ard MrD. Thomas J.P.)

CIVIL CASE. W. L. Brown v. Ashburton Woollen Manufacturing Company, claim £91 15s. — Mr Orisp for plaintiff, Me Purnell for the defendants. This was a case in which the plaintiff, a commercial traveller sued the defendant Company for travell Ing expenses, and commi eion on orders taken. The amount of £24 10a lOd had been paid Into Court. — The case had been partly heard at laatsitttng of tho Court. - The cross-examination of theplaintlff by Mr Pornell wasresumed. The cross examination was mainly directed wlthavi&rr toßhow that some of the orders allege 1 to have been taken by the plaintiff, had not been given, the forms for whom the goods had been made up declining to take them. Nothing material was elioited — This was the case for the plaintiff and Mr Parnell opened for the defenoe, stating that he would ihow that a special agreement had been come to in regard to travelling expenses, and he said th»t he would also show that the plaintiff had taken orders that he was ezpreisljr told not to, and that some for which he claimed had not been given. — Henry Atkinson, manager for defendant Company, said that in June last he opened negotiations with Mr Brown. He had instructions to nffjr plaintiff £25 and 2£ per cent commission on accepted orders. Plaintiff was to call ■ at Wellington and Auckland. Saw j plaintiff on Jubilee day ; made him the offer. He said that he thought £25 was too little fur travelling expenses and witness replied he would have to try to make it up out of his commission. Plaintiff replied that he would do his best, by which witness understood plaintiff to accept the offer in the terms witness had mentioned. In regard to samples witness asked if plaintiff would not wait for them. He replied that he would not and witness told him that he would send them to his address i In Auckland, through Kinaey Ward and Co. The samples could have been cent to plaintiff in Ohristohurch if he had so ' wished. Saw plaintiff before he went to ' Dunedin. Referring him to Mr Jameson In regard to travelling expenoes. When ' plaintiff returned be said that he had ' been ill while in Dunedin, but ho did not ' Say for how long.' In regard to two large ' orders which plaintiff had take a from ' eertaln firms witness told him distinctly < not to call on those firms. The plaintiff I said when he came back that be had mnde l enquiries and thought the firms were all- f right. Witness enumerated four firms * which had not given nrders, though the ' plaintiff claimed commission on them, B Had the Company received proper orders from these fi.ms, commission would have * been allowed plaintiff ; notwithstanding c that the Company might not have been c able to exeonte them in a specified time. Plaintiff had been allowed more than full a commission onexeouted orders; by thiswit- a ness meant that goods had been returned, c acd no rebate of commission had been i asked for. Witness had himself been a com- d meicial traveller ; it was not the custom u for a traveller to have authority to take v whatever orders he pleased. Since a plaintiff returned witness had suggested ? to him the propriety of writing to these v firms and get them to confirm their orders. c Plaintiff said that he would do so. — By Mr Crisp: Plaintiff demurred at first to the £25 for travelling expenees. There was a conversation about the time for the | trip* Witness pointed out that three weeks was sufficient ; witness did not remember plaintiff saying that three weeks was not long enough; He might have said it. Witness denied that plaintiff said ? £25 was not sufficient and he wonld ex- ? sect defendant to see him put right Witness sent the samples by arrangement with plaintiff. When Mr Brown came back he Bald the samples went astray at Wellington. Plaintiff was to call at Wellington and Auckland. When he started there wos no mention of his going to Nelson. Plaintiff was ia Dunedin 19 days. Witness did not know if plaintiff was too ill to attend to business for a portion of the time he wbb in Dunedin. Before Mr Brown started for the North Island witness might have supplied him With the names of the firms on which he was to call. Plaintiff did not t»ke orders from any firms with which the Company had not previously done baslness. — Mr Griip then questioned the witness in regard to one of the firms, which the defendants alleged had given no order to the Company, — The plaintiff said the firm In question had ordered Winter goods from him and in reply to Mr Or Up ihe witness said that the order might yet come into the Company, when commission on it would be allowed the plaintiff.— By Mr Pnrnell : Plaintiff mentioned the fact of his being ill when referring to the length of time he had been in Dunedin. — y, Jameson, deputy Chairman of the defendant Company; was S>t a meeting of Directors when it was proposed to engage Mr Brown. Minute book produbod. It was decided to nsk Mr Brown to go to the North Island, £25 to be allowed for travelling expenses and 2\ per cent commission on all accepted orders. Mr Atkinson, tbe Manager had instructions to carry out this arrangement. Mr Brown got a cheque for £25. Saw plaintiff in reference to going to Dunedin. The dlrtotors considered that matter and deoided to allow £6 for travelling expenses' Witness saw plaintiff about this; He said the amount woa ■mtll, but witness said there was a good chance of getting a good commission. He accepted, and the £6 was paid. In reference to the time occupied in settling a dispute with a customer in Dunedin two or three days would have been sufficient, and tbe Directors were willing to allow him £5 for this. Witness considered £5 was sufficient for the Nelson trip. Wltneeß denied that plaintiff had been unduly detained waiting for a settlement on his account, as the directors were quite willing to pay him what was justly due to him. — H. ISemple, Secretary to tho Company gave evidence to show that plaintiff bad aeopted the travelling expeuses allowed by the Directors. — Thin was tbe case for tbe defendants. — Counsel on both sides addressed the Court some length. — The Bench considered it bad been conclusively shown that there had bem a contract between the two parties. Judgment was given for the amount patd into Couit £23 10s lOd, tho Bench Btating that the plaintiff would be entitled to commission on any orders obtained by him which might be yet executed by the Company. Costs were given against the plaintiff but defendants only claimed professional fee. ALLEGED LARCENY AS A BAILEE. J. H. Cirltcn was charged with the larceny as a bailee of tvro draught horses, the property of Hugo and Rudolph Friedlandr. Tbe case was, on the application of tbe police adjourned for a week. Bail was allowed and was forthcoming. t XPB ASHST/BTON FOBKS CASE Robinson Ruddlck was charged upon the information of Alexander Turner, farmer, of ABhburton Forks, with having unlawfully entered by force upon land in the occupation of tbe complainant, and with having driven away cattle and sheep, under tho control of the complaioan', which were depasturing on the land In question. The. complainant alleged that it was likely the conduct would be repeated, and might cause a breach of the peaoe, wherefore he applied tint defendant might be bound over -Mr Oaygill for complainant, Mr Wilding with him Mr Clayton for defendant — This was a case which' hid been pac tly hear4 at last sitting $f the Ooorfci An adjournment had been

made in order to enable Mr Herring, tnHiijiger of tha Alrord Batato Company, *r>d witnesses for complainant, to to pro'uje his authority to represent the Company, thus having been called for by Mr Clayton. —Mr Oaygi-1 said i htt to the documents, csked for at last Bitting of the Court would involve considerable expense to the complainant. He would therefore have the case aa it now Btood, — After argu ment between Mr Wilding and Mr Cayglll as to the question of jurisdiction of the Oonrt, Mr Wilding having indloated that a point of title might be raised, Mr Wilding called evidence for the defence as follows : — L. E. Corabie, formerly manager of the Alford tfitate Company, said that when in that position he come to an arrangement with Mr P. Tiaoh. — The witness was giving evidonce as to transactions in regard to the Estate, when the Magi trato said he could not take the evidence unless the witness produced his authority to aot on behalf of the Estate. — The witness continued : Tisob, in consequence of the arrangement entered into with witness ocoupled the leasehold now in tho occupation of Turner. It is ringfenced and sob-divided. During the time witness was manager of the Estate he claimed no right to the leasehould. — By Mr Oaygill : Witness did not give any writing to TJeoh in regard to the transaction he had spoken of ; but it passed through the books in the usua 1 way.— -P. Tisoh, said that hs acquired the leasehold referred to, from the recent proprietor of the Alfordl Estate. He exchanged some freehold land for some of the Estate's freehold land and also re quired the right (o occupy part of the run — the leasehold till 1890 Witness occupied this land and fenced it In wiih his own freehold. The company went on paying the rent on th!« freehold. Witness di-posad of bis freehold to Huddick some Bix or seven years ago and at tho same time transferred with it his leasehold right— By Mr Oaygill: witness disposed of the land to Kuddlck through tbe lawyer. He thought it was through Harper and Co. Ruddiok did not p*y any separate sum for the leasehold. He g*vo it to Buddiok by word of mouth. He did not think he told his lawyer. He did not tell the Alford Company about it as he considered that they had nothing to do with It.— By Mr Wildiog: Witness was In possession of the leasehold when he gave possession to Ruddick. — Robinson Kuddick the defendant, remembered taking over the land, now occupied by '1 urner, from Tisch. The understanding with Tisch was that if witness bought the freehold, witness was also to acquire his right in the leasehold. Witness understood that Tfsoh got the leasehold for the same time rb the Alford Enate Company occupied their run. The land was transferred from Tisch to BlcGuinness Bnd Mitchell, who held it for witness. The witness went on to say that He had told Turner, the present occupant, of the leasehold land being witness's, and detailed negotiations which.be said he had had with Turner. Witneta took legal advice as U his title to the leasehold, and, as a result, ho warned Turner that if his oattle were not removed witness would impound them. Witness subsequently did impound them. Witness did not go upon the freehold land at all. — The witness was oro-ia-cxamined by Mr Caygill at considerable length. —Tho evidence was very much involved and complicated, and was almost unintelligible to any but those concerned in the case. {

["Left Bitting.]