MERCHANT’S TROUBLES

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 212, 2 June 1921, Page 7

MERCHANT’S TROUBLES

ALLEGED BOYCOTT IN IRON TRADE

WAS A CONTRACT BROKEN ?

' Tho case at present before Mr. Justice Hosking' and a jury of twelve in tho Supremo Court, in which A. R, Hislop, Ltd., claim from tho'Addington Iron Rolling Mills A'597 Is. Id., will be concluded to-day, the Judge having intimated yesterday afternoon that lie will sum up this morning. The claim is for alleged breach of contract; and tho plaintiffs, and Mr. !•'. S. Wilding for tho sole agents for tho defendants’ wares, the contract has not been kept. The defen-

dants make a general denial of tho allegations. Interest is attached to tho case, which was commenced on Tuesday, because of certain letters referring to the alleged existence of a ring of Wellington wholesale iron merchants. Mr. T. Ncavo appears for the plaintiffs, and Mr. F. S. Wilding for the defendants. Yesterday morning Mr. Wilding moved for a nonsuit pn the ground that the sales arrangement was purely for the sale of the goods, and that no contract in writing had ever beep given. Tho opinion was expressed by His

Honour that tho arrangement was more a “contract of agency” than a “contract of sale.” Mr. Neavs: There was no sale until

Hislop, Ltd., made a sale. His Honour noted the application, and reserved decision on the points made by co unsol. For the defendants, counsel referred briefly to the non-existence of any contract. Had thero been a contract it was strange that tho Auckland branch of tho plaintiff’s firm should know nothing of it. The defendants would deny absolutely tho allegations made by tho plaintiffs. In all the correspondence from tho plaintiffs there was no mention of a contract.

George Thomas Booth, chairman of directors of the Addington Iron Rolling Mills, stated in evidence that in June, 1918, he. with tho company’s manager, visited Hislop in Wellington, as Waller had said the latter firm would handle stuff from Addington on condition that the mills would consign goods to them. Binning, Hislop's manager, was present at the interview. It was arranged that the plaintiffs should sell the defendants’ goods, and that the defendants should consign a certain amount of bars to be settled for by tho plaintiffs when sold. A monthly statement was to bo sent the plaintiffs, subject to the usual discount terms. Witness did not ask the plaintiffs not to sell other than Addington iron. His Honour: Did you agree to sell your iron only through Hislop and Co.? Witness: I did not. That would have involved the appointment of sole agent’, and such a thing was never suggested' to Hislop, Ltd. The bulk of the sales came from the North Island, and it was impossible to suppose that mv firm would cut off all their other customers, with whom they had dealt for years. . . . We have had goods on consignment all over New Zealand. Witness added that he did not recol-

lect that there was any arrangement for twelve months. With reference to his letter to Hislop announcing the firm’s inability to send any further supplies, witness "said that wholesalers had considered Hislop and Co. were not entitled to be regarded as wholesale merchants. “The letter speaks-for itself,’’ said the Judge. Witness stated that he, had no authority from the board of drectcns of his ’’company to interview Hislop, Ho considered his position entitled him to make a simple arrangement in order to obtain a new wholesale customer. Had his action involved a change in the policy of his firm it would have been submitted _to > the directors. Difficulties in obtaining supplies of raw material restricted the work of the mills from 40 tons a week to-about 30. He was certain that there

w-is bo nrrnmremftnt wvith the plaintiffs to supply consignments of 20 or 30 tons. The main object of the visit to Wellington was to endeavour to influence the Railway Department, to take Addington ** The" witness was cross-examined nt lermfb on the snbieet of the letter marked ‘"Confidential.” Secrecy was desired, he said, because the plaintiffs were not regarded as bona fide wh.ole.sa ers, and their price-cutting was resented , Mr. Neave: Then, in short, Hislops wfls ontter firm r Witness: Yes. Counsel: Will you give the names of the wholesale, firms that objected to plaintiffs being treated as wholesalers? His Honour: I don’t think f shall order the witness io answer the question "unless I can see it is for the purpose of arriving at a just conclusion in the case. But I think it will lead us into side issues, away from ' the main point 01 whether there was a contract and whether it was broken. The answer accordingly was not given. Albert James Raustron, manager for the defendants, deniedl the existence or a

contract. Percy G. Waller gave evidence that as travelling representative for the Addington Mills he had heard of no objection from Hislop, LW., on account of hiss canvassing for orders. He had recommenced his firm to get in touch with the plaintiffs. His firm had no difficulty with any Ting, until certain merchants said they would do no business with the Addington Company because it was dealing with an unrecognised firm. Both buyers and those who had not bought took up that attitude. After hearing counsel’s addresses the Count adjourned until 10 a.m. to-day.