LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 935, 30 September 1910, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT.

BUSINESS MEN'S DISPUTE,

MERCHANT AND AGENT. / The Chief ' Justice' (Sir Robert' J3tout): began yesterdayf' the. hearing of a case in which . Henry Hastings Cramp; agent and merchant, ■ of .Wellington, • claimed ,£2OO 125.: from Charles Edwin Waters, of Sydney. _ ■ The plaintiff' is now carrying on business in. Victoria. Street, ' Wellington,-, and the defendant, is! carrying on business at Sydney as. a. merchant under the name of C. E. Waters and Company.- In April, 1807, the parties, entered into an ment whereby plaintiff . was - appointed as the New Zealand-business representative of. the. defendant. According to the statement of claim,. the ■ plaintiff • was. to receive a, salary, of. J2500' for. .tfhe, first year, inclusive .Vof travelling , and .- other.. expenses, •• salary ; of- assistant, ■ office rent, and air local expenses.; The ..agreement was . to remain' in .force for five years, l subject.: to ; termination' 'at' the,-, endi'of the; first year on; three, months' notice, by either side. If the agreement continued beyond one year, the .position in regard to salary: -.was-' to' be reviewed." .On Janu-' ary .31, 1908, the..defendant,'.it'was'further .alleged;, terminated the agreement without notice.-' Plaintiff ' claimed , 'from him; the; sum; 'of ; .£2OO 125.; made up as 'follows:—Salary from May 4, 1907, to May .3, 1908, <6500; extra- travelling .expenses as sanctioned,. .£lO j' extra - trips taken- at the request of ■■the.defendant:(north .£lB, and south ,>833; furniture, purchased; .£ll 25.; Symonds and Company's claim .re camphor paid by plaintiff, ■ S&■ 75.. 10d;; income tax for.- -business done by plaintiff .as agentlof defendant, \£lG 10s.; total, iE6O3 ;195.. :10d.;by .'cash; received, ,£403 )7s;'"lod.,;' balance • claimed by.' plain?'tiff, J5200" 125., with costs. .. . '. For the 'defence- it. was ..alleged - that plaintiff,, had 1 not, duly complied.-witii the. .'terms of the agreement. It was admitted that defendant was to bear the expense; of fitting up an office in Wellington, but it w.as denied that the plaintiff had spent .£ll:2s.,;or.any sum, for tfhe purpose.. : ,It - was . also denied that ■ the defendant authorised the, extra travelling; that I the: ■plaintiff; 'paidany-. claimby . Symonds, an;d"" Company;and' that, 'the ' plaintiff ; was' liable,, -as. alleged,', for .. income tax. ■. Alternatively; it was contended that,", if plaintiff, ;, :^as-'liable ;.for , income tax, it was . one:;ol'the. espenses to.'comeout. of his: £500 under the,- agreement. It was,' further stated; for the ■ defence that plaintiff ; had been guilty of. negligence, causing.;l6ss :.and':.trouble;-,.that,:he ..hadpaid: a visit to Sydney without permission,; and. in brcach of agreement,, and had thereupon been: dismissed,-.-but afterwards temporarily re-engaged. ;■ ; -■; ■ : '.defendant: counterclaimed: .£53 lis. Id. for salary advanced to plaintiff. ' - Mr.:,A. Blair appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. W. H. D. Bell for the defendant. •" ;'j: . After hearing the case for the plaintiff, his Honour adjourned the;' Court: until 10.15-a.m. to-day, ■■.-■■: ..