RESERVED JUDGMENT.

Hokitika Guardian, 12 August 1925, Page 1

RESERVED JUDGMENT.

JEFFRIES AND NEVILLE v. CRON

.JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT

Tho Registrar at Hokitika this morning read the following judgment of Justice Alpcrs in tho east* of William Jeffries of Hokitika, auctioneer, and Charles Samuel Neville of Hokitika Inspector of Stock for Westland, plaintill's and John Cron of Haast, farmer, defendant, heard at Hokitika at the last two sittings of the Supreme Court and concluded on 2-lth. June.

Tho judgment of Justice Alpcrs states :

In tFis ia.se as originally constituted, William Jeffries of Hokitika, auctioneer, claimed from John Cron of Haast River, cattle-farmer, the sum of T |.j() ;ls damages for refusal to deliver 100 bullocks and 50 heifers which I’lainlilf alleges he purchased from Defendant. In his statement of defence the defendant pleaded a general denial and further that the contract

,-ued upon was not enforceable by action for want of compliance with Section G of “The Sale of Goods Act, 1908” and by reason of uncertainty of its terms.

The action enmo on for hearing before Mr Justice MacGregor on March ’2Jrd. 1925. At the close of the pinintill's ease defendant moved for a nonsuit. It appeared from the evidence of the plaintiff that he had purchased the cattle not for himself alone, but for himself and Charles Samuel Neville for the purpose of stocking the Polierua I! mi owned by them in partnership. The motion for non-suit and the further hearing of the action were adjourned until the next sittings of the Court, leave being given to add Neville as eo-jilainiiif in the action. The adjourned hearing came before me with Jeffries anil Neville as plaintiffs An amended statement of defence hue been tiled in which the defences formerly pleaded were re-iterated and three new grounds of defence were added. viz., that the note or memorandum in writing, if any existed, was sigm . without the knowledge or authority o. defendant by his wife; that the plaintiff. Jeffries was acting for remuneration as agent for defendant in respect of the alleged contract and had no disclosed to defendant that he was acquiring an interest in the subject matter of it; and that Neville was, at all times material. Stock Inspector ior the Westland District, and that the purchase by him of stock, situate within that District was contrary to the provisions of “The Stock Act, 1908.” On most of tho facts in issue there emerged at the hearing a sharp contliet of evidence; unfortunately flic letters and telegrams passing between the parties exhibit the same degree of inconsistency. After a careful perusal and analysis of the evidence and correspondence f am driven to the conclusion that apart from some farmers and stock-dealers who deposed merely to market prices, tln-ro is only one witness, the plaiutilf. William Jeffries, whose evidence I am able to accept in its entirety and without reservation. And his evidence, unless il can be supplemented from other sources, is fatal to bis own claim. He states:

“1 am a personal friend ol Cron lor 10 (o 12 years. .1 have advised him on sales from time to time. . . The purchase (the subject matter of the action) wars made on behalf of mysell mid Mr Neville. 1 wa.s to get comtnissh.u oil the sale. I get it oil all sales. It was not mentioned to Cron. It was not necessary. He, knows my firm gets commission. 1 was- the agent lor Cron my linn uas Je(fries' and Co., were Inlying for the t’nherua .Bun of which Syndicate f am a niemher. T did not explain to Cron who was buying. ’ It is clear from this perfectly frank statement that Jeffries honestly thought he could, in his capacity of commission agent sell the defendant s cattle to himself in his capacity ol farmer; and that he could do this, and charge commission for his services without disclosing to his principal the fact that he was himself buyer or other facts material to Ist known. Bitch a view of their duties to a principal are not uncommon among commission agents; htlt. there is no ground for suggesting that Mr Jeffries acted otherwise than hona fide, or that he sought to take advantage of his lidm iary position.

The actual purchase was made by one .1. B. Wallace, a stock dealer in the employ ol "\\ . Jellries and Co., the linn-name under which the Plaintiff Jeffries tarries on business. ibis mail was sent down to the liaasl I'iver district in South Mestlaml with instructions to buy cattle lor the Plaindll's, his remuneration being a fixed wage from ‘'.Jellries and Co. A loiter accrediting him had been sent to Defendant among others and is itt these terms: "Ml- J. B. Wallace is representing us iii intying cattle during the next week or two in South Westland. Should he make any purchase please note his eon tracts will he. quite safe, p.p. W. Jellries amt Co,. W. Jeffries, .Manager.” The defendant who bad been sidling bis cattle through W. Jellries anti Co.'s agency for many years, migliTnot unnaturally conclude that Wallace was Inlying for himself, bid, us he was introduced and his contracts vouched lor financially by defendant’s usual selling agents, they would expect the usual sale commission. Wallace, however, when recalled at the hearing before me, swore that he had expressly told defendant that lie was buying for plaintiffs. ”1 told Cron f was bityPlaintilfs. "1 told Cron ! was buying for Jeii’ries and Neville. I here was some discussion about the Poherua Bun and 1 told Cron that. Jeffries and Neville had bought it run and wanted cattle for it.” This statement defendant stoutly denies; and it is subject to the comment that it was not made at the .March hearing. The witness explains that this was because be was not asked about it.

The defendant’s denial, however, does not conclude the matter because on much el'O in his evidence I find it quite impossible to place any reliance. His wife had for many years acted as his amanuensis, signing letters simply ••John Cron” without any indication that the signature was not made by her husband himself. Most of the letters and telegrams relied upon by plaintiff as constituting the memoiandttm of the contract are in fact so signed. The defendant now swears, on a rising market be it noted, that lie was absent from home when these letters and telegrams were sent by his wife; that before leaving home, he had merely told her "to answer letters, if any came, in her own name;” and that she had no authority to make contracts for him. These statements, though corroborated by defendant’s wife in the witness box. are so flagrantly at variance with the only inferences that can 1«? drawn from the letters them-

selves that I can only regard this part of the defence as a trumped-up story. It broke down completely under a welldirected cross-examination by Mr Thomas.

But although I would attach little importance to defendant’s denial standing by itself I find myself unable on other grounds to accept W allace's statement. In view of the wording of the letter of W. Jeffries and Co. quoted above, itf is in the highest degree unlikely that Jeffries, before despatching Wallace to South Westland would have instructed him to tell farmers that ho was buying not through, hut for Mr Jeffries. And it is still inorj unlikely that Wallace, without express instructions, would have said so. Moreover, there is much in the phrasing of the other letters quite inconsistent with a communication by Wallace to defendant that he was buying for Jeffries and Neville. The name of the latter nowhere occurs. When differences arose as to the place and time of delivery, Jeffries writes:— “1 met Wallace at Little Wanganui and showed him your wire and at Ins request wired you that lie would take delivery of tho 150 head of caftle at Maintain.” When defendant repudiated Hie contract, Jeffries tclogrn plied :

“Wallace on way south. He is cor tain lo insist of delivery as sale con cltiisve.”

Finally Wallace himself telegraphs: “l claim delivery of cattle.a- purchased— failing same (i.e. delivery) solicitors taking action which I do not desire.”

This is clearly not tho sort, of telegram Wallace would have sent to defendant if it were true, as he stales, that he had told defendant lie was merely working for W. Jeffries and Co. on wages and was buying cattle for Jeffries and Neville.

The questions of law arising under the various defences pleaded were ably argued by Mr Hannan and Mr 'White; but on the view I take of the facts, it is not necessary to refer to the cases cited. It is long settled law that an agent will not he allowed to put his duty in conflict with his interest. Hence it was the clear duty of W. Jeffries and Co. to obtain for flu- defendant the highest price possible, it was no less the clear interest of Jeffries on tho other band to buy at the lowest. An agent does noL discharge his duly unless he puts his principal in possession of all tacts that might influence his decision and unless the principal with such full knowledge assents. In particular he must not buy his principal’s property without the principal’s complete knowledge and assent.

Bui while it is not necessary to deal with the defences raised under “TinSale of Goods Act. 1908,” there is one defence pleaded to which 1 desire to make reference inasmuch as it inflects without justification upon file conduct of a public officer.

.Mr Neville, one of the plaintiffs, is Inspector of Stock for the Westland District. Section Bof “The Stock Act. 1908” forbids an inspector to lie

“either directly or indirectly, a dealer in stock in tho district in his charge.” “A dealer in stock” has, 1 am satisfied, its ordinary and natural meaning of a person who buys and sells stock as a business. The Act contains no prohibition against an Inspector owning a farm in bis district; anil it was never intended by the Legislature to forbid officers under Hie Act buying stock for their own use, apart from “dealing.” If the construction contended lor by defendants were rigid it Mould be contrary to tlu- Statute lor a Stock-Inspector to buy a horse to drive in his gig or- a goat to graze in his backyard. There is no ground for suggesting that Mr Neville, in entering into tills transaction, commuted a breach of the Statute ho is appointed to administer.

Judgment will lie for Iho defendant with cosls m.'eording to scale. second Counsel £(> (Is. disbursements and witnesses expellees to In* settled liv the Resist nil'. In coniioctioii with the case I luid to deal with a motion for an order to review the taxation bv the Registrar of the costs ordered to he paid by the plaintiff to the defendant in respect nl the abortive trial in March. On the hearing of the motion it appeared that expenses had been allowed to an amount some £l7 in excess id expense actually incurred. The Registrar had been grossly misled. Motor car lares had been allowed at nearly double the stun in itially paid to the Company, while the allowances and expenses of defendant and two of Ids witnesses had been assessed on the assumption that they had spent seven davs on a journey which actually occupied lour. Defendant and tiis wife appeared bolore me in person on the hearing of the motion and told me, apparent!,v ipiite I rankly, what their expenses'had really been, and there is no evidence to show lhat they wete parties to misleading; the Registrar, or indeed knew anything about it. Not the slightest blame attaches in the matter cither to the Registrar or to defendant's solicitors at Grey mouth who did not themselves deal with it. Tint in view ot the very grave circumstances disclosed T direct the I'epist far in fixing (lie witnesses’ expense* and disbursements now allowed against the plaintiffs to subject each item to suspicious scrutiny, to rail for vouchers where practicable and if lie deem it necessary require till affidavit ol increase. Solicitors :Mr C. S. Thomas and Mr White for plaintiffs; .Mr.). A. .Murdoch and Mr ,). Hannan for defendants. It was resolved that Counsel meet the Registrar on Friday of next week at 11 a.m. to settle the costs ot the action.