SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1468, 17 June 1912, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

BILLOWS AERATING MACHINES

AGENCY AGREEMENT,

DE RENZY GAINS JJ7CO DAMAGES,

Damages to the extent of .£"00 were given against defendants on Saturday evening in the action for , alleged breach of agreement in respect of the New Zealand rights of a patent aerated water manufacturing machine, heard in the Supreme Court before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and a special 11117 of twelve. The action was commenced on Wednesday. The claim was' for =£9980 damages for alleged loss of proiit for six years on the sale of Billows' Patent Aerating Machines in connection with a sole agency for r>ew Zealand and Fiji. The parties to the action were William de Kenzy, agent, of Palmerston Aorth, plaintiff," and Frnser Ramsay (New Zealand), Ltd., general agents, Wellington, defendants. Mr. C. P. Skcrrctt, K.C., with Mr. G. 11. Fell, appeared for de Kenzy, and Sir John Fimllay, K.C., with Mr. J. A. Tripe, appeared for Fraser Ramsay (Aew Zealand), Ltd. Mr. C. J. A. Loughnan, of Palmerston North, was also present to appear for 0. F. Spooner, who proceeded against de Kenzy in a separate action, claiming damages for alleged breach of contract in reference to an agency for the machines for Wellington and Hawkes Bay districts. On Wednesday it had been agreed that both actions should be heard together. Particulars of the claim and the defence were published on Thursday. The evidence, which was lengthy, concluded on Friday evening, and when the Court resumed on Saturday it remained for counsel to address the jury on l>ehalf of the three different parties. This portion of the business was completed at 1 p.m. In the afternoon, before Ins Honour summed up Sir John Findlay asked leave to amend the statement of defence by inserting clauses to the effect that before the agreement sued upon was executed the defendants produced and read to plaintiff (from the letter of appointment as agent of the Fascinn, Manufacturing Co., of Melbonrne), inter alia, the term of duration of their agreement with the Fascina Co., and it was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendants that the duration of plaintiff's agreement should bo dependent upon and co-terminus with the agreement between tho defendants and the Fascina

Mr. Toll objected to the amendment, but his Honour allowed it, subject to the objection being upheld. ' At 3.15 p.m. the jury retired, and after deliberating for two hours and a halt returned with a. verdict in favour of the plaintiff. The issues submitted to the jury were answered in tho following terms :—

I. Did tiie Fascina Co., in the month of December,-1911, refuse to.renew the agency agreement with defendant company, of January 12, 1911. on the expiry of twelve months therein mentioned ?—Answer: Yes.

2. If so, was defendant company prevented from performing on its part the agreement with plaintiff of October 25, . 1911?— Answer: Yes. 3. At the time of entering into the contract of October 25, 1911, was it within the contemplation of Hie parties that plaintiff should, or might, enter into'sub-agency contracts with other persons under which sub-agents would undertake to buy, and plaintiff to supply, machines and flavours during tho period of the continuance of the firstmentioned agreement?— Answer; Yes. 4. Did Slack (managing director of . the defendant company) and de Bpnzy verbally agree, before the written agreement sued on was executed, that the duration of such agreement should, be depsndent on the term of tho duration of the defendant company's agreement.with the Fascina Co.?— Answer: Kot sufficient evidence to enable the jiirv to come to a. decision. 5." What damages (if any) is plaintiff entitled to recover'-Answer: Total, .£7OO. (a) In respect of tho alleged breach of contract?— Answer: .£SOO. (b) In respect.of the damages (if any) recovered by C. F. Sjiooner against him for' breaches of plaintiff's sub-agency agreement with him ?—Answer: J2OO. 6. What damages is Spooner entitled to recover from do Eenzy?—Answer: .£2OO. Judgment was then given for,plaintiffs in both actions (for de Eenzy for ,£7OO, and for Spooner for .£200), with costs in both cases according to scale, with ,£ls 15s. costs for three days in each case, and £h ss. a. day for second counsel ._

Sir John Findlay had raised certain nonsuit points during the hearing, aud leave was reserved for defendants to movo for a nonsuit.

LAND AGENT'S' CLAIM. FOR FINDING A PUECHASEE. .£350 COMMISSION. Beserved decision was delivered in the Supremo Court on Saturday afternoon by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) on certain claims arising out of transactions concerning the Glenbrook Station, Hawke's Bay. The plaintiffs were Harcourt and Co., land agents, and the defendant was Kenneth M'Kenzie, farmer, Hawkc's Bay.

It was stated at the hearing that defendant held Glenbrook Station, a property which was composed to a considerable extent of leasehold land. Defendant instructed plaintiffs to sell the property with certain stock, crops, and chattels, for .£16,300, out of which plaintiffs were to receive ,£350 as commission. Plaintiffs now claimed .£350 on the ground that an agreement of sale had been completed, and that it would hove been effected but for the conduct of the defendant.

Defendant contended that plaintiffs had entered into a. contact which was a breach of his instructions, and was not binding. He denied, therefore, that plaintiffs had earned a commission. Defendant claimed that as no deposit had been taken, a breach of his instructions had been committed. He counter-claimed for ,£7OO (the amount of deposit he had stipulated for) as damages. At the hearing plaintjff was represented by Sir John Findlay, K.C., with him Mr. D. M. Findky, and Mr. J. H. G. Murdoch, of Napier, was counsel for tho defendant. .

in jriving judgment, his Honour said that at the time when plaintiffs were pievented by defendant from having the contract completed they had found a purchaser able and willing to complete the purchase. They were therefore entitled to their commission. Judgment would be for plaintiffs on the claim for the amount snoci for, ,£3oO, and olso on the counterclaim, with costs.