LAW REPORTS

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2448, 29 April 1915, Page 9

LAW REPORTS

COURT OF APPEAL APPEAL DISMISSED A MANAGER'S COMMISSION Reserved judgement was given in the Court of Appeal yesterday in the case of Albert Waterworth, photographic dealer, of Wellington, versus Harrington's (N.Z.), Ltd., also photographic dealers. The facts were that the appellant (plaintiff in the Court below) was engaged by the respondents (defendants in the Court below) to manage their Auckland branch at a salary and 15 per cent, on the profits. The agreement was dated April '10, 1911. "When the balance-sheet was prepared, the amount of 5 per cent, was written . off the stock-in-trade, the value of .which was reduced by about £500. The point for settlement was whether the company had a right to write off 5 per cent, as depreciation in calculating tha percentage to bo paid to the appellant. His Honour Mr. Justice Cooper hold that tie balance-sheet so prepared was correct, and against this deoision "Waterworth appealed. The judgment of the Chief Justice • (Sir Robt. Stout) set out that the exact value of .the stock and assets had to be ascertained before the net profits could be arrived at. The value was ' ascertained by reducing some items and taking off for depreciation 5 per cent. / of the value of tlie stook thus valued. It vas a method of getting at the value of the stock, which, it was said, had depreciated. If it was not the true value the plaintiff had his remedy by arbitration, or if that was no longer open, he could sue. The Court aid ■not find anything but the true value of the stock could appear in the bal-ance-sheet, and found that the plaintiff was not estopped by tho value therein appearing, The appeal was dismissed with costs on the lowest scale as from a distance. Mr. C. B. Morison, K.C., with Mr, G. Samuel, appeared for the appellant, and Mr. T. Young for the respondents.

NOXIOUS WEED CASE. The decision of the Full Court was given in the matter of the appeal from tha decision of Mr. T. Hutchison, S.M., and a J.P. in a proceeding at Windham between Jabez Rudolf Whybora and David Waters. Waters was proceeded against on an information that, being the occupier of certain land, namely, > Block VIII, Wyndham S.D., within the space of six months past, he did fail to clear from the land at the proper season of the year the noxious weed ragwort, contrary to the provisions o£ the Act. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and after hearing the evidence of the parties the Magistrate 'dismissed the information. Subsequently the informant applied to have a. case stated for the opinion of the Court of Appeal. The Magistrate stated a case, and said it was proved upon the hearing that defendant had failed to clear the land, or some of it, but that no notice, as required by Seotion 10, Sub-section 2, of the Noxious Weeds Act, 1908; had been served upon the defendant prior to the laying of the information. The Magistrate was of opinion that it was necessary in law ihafc notice should be served.

The decision of the Court was that the appeal, must he allowed, and the oase remitted to the Magistrate- to award such penalty as he considers lit jf the offence has been proved.