IMPORTANT CASE.

Kumara Times, Issue 1079, 16 March 1880, Page 4

IMPORTANT CASE.

A case of considerable importance to commission agents was recently heard before Mr Justice Bowen at the Guildhall. Duck v. Clark was an action brought to recover damages for the defendant’s negligence in investing plaintiff’s money, whereby it was alleged that the plaintiff had lost the sum of L3OO. It appeared from the evidence given at the trial that in January, 1877, the defendant, who had on seveial occasions invested money for the plaintiff, went to the plaintiff and informed him that he (defendant) knew of an investment for L3OO. There was a conflict of evidence as to what happened at this interview. The plaintiff affirmed that the defendant stated that the security was a safe one, and that the money was subsequently banded over to the defendant on that understanding. The defendant, however, insisted that he represented merely that the security was good on the surface, and that it would have to be investigated by a solicitor. Both agreed in saying that a cheque for L3OO was actually handed to the defendant by the plaintiff on February 9. Evidence was also given by the defendant that he had instructed a solicitor to make the necessary investigations. The plaintiff, however, wholly denied that he had assented to the employment of a solicitor, maintaining throughout that the representation made by the defendant was that the investment was quite safe. It was subsequently discovered that the security on which the money had been advanced was valueless. Hence the action. Various questions, more or less material, were raised during the trial, but the most important were these : Did the plaintiff employ, or was he aware of the employment of a solicitor? If he authorised the defendant to employ one, had the defendant exercised due care in his choice ? The jury found for the plaintiff for the full amount. The ‘ Law Times,’ from whose report of the case we have quoted, says:—“The rule is well-established that if an agent has authority to employ a sub-agent or deputy, he will be liable for any negligence in selecting an improper person to act as sub-agent or deputy, but not for the negligence of such sub-agent unless he has himself personally interfered.”