Second Edition. Hawkins v, Lamason.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIX, Issue 20, 15 May 1914, Page 6

Second Edition. Hawkins v, Lamason.

log lie is quite capable of doing that. Continuing, witness said that in the conversation with Mr Grant, Hawkins made a demand for remuneration. Witness got angry, because he regarded the demand as unjust. He had often told Hawkins that the business could not pay him wages. Hawkins was very often away from Stratford —nobody knew where he was half his time. .Mr Macalister: Have you ever had people working for you for nothing?— Never. Counsel: Then why did you expect Hawkins to work for nothing?—-He was not a wages man. Counsel: Did you agree to Hawkins’ name being put in the advertisements as auctioneer?—l saw that the. name was there. Counsel; Did you ever object ? No. Counsel; Therefore you acquiesced in the name being there?—Oh, ho seemed to like it being there. Presumptuous people do presumptuous things. Continuing, witness said he had never made a definite offer of partnership. All the time he was in Stratford Hawkins acted as auctioneer. Hawkins gave receipts on behalf of the firm. Counsel; How long was Hawkins absent from Stratford? —It might have been two or three weeks. He was away every now and again. Counsel: But he conducted all the K ales? Yes. He came hack every Friday night for the Saturday sale. Counsel: He wn s always on hand when wanted? —Oh, yes. Counsel: You say you gave Hawkins a roll of bacon, Unit was meielv as a token of good will?—Yes; just as a present. Counsel: You were very friendly with Hawkins at the time?—Oh, he always was very affable to everybody. After the luncheon adjournment evidence was given by S. Header, storeman at Lamason’s. James Robson gave evidence that about the middle of March he had a conversation with Hawkins regarding some timber being sold, for witness’ sou. Hawkins said tVre should be a good opening for selling timber. Hawkins also said that later on he hoped to have more, interest in the business, (That was all witness could remember ,of the conversation. Cross-pxanijned: Ink the course of the conversation witness. complimented Hawkins ion his' work as an auctioneer. Mr Thomson said he had one more witness who had not turned up. His evidence was important, as it dealt with, what Hawkins had said to him about his connection with Lamason. The S.M; said he could not see that further light was needed in that direction.*' The position had been fairly clearly put, both parties having given evidence. At this 1 point thb ! hearing was adjourned till next Court day.

AUCTIONEERS IN COURT. A SLIPSHOD ARRANGEMENT. At the Court this morning W. H, Hawkins. (Mr Macalister) claimed from T. J. Lamason (Mr Thomson) £5 per week for the period from December 6th-1913, to March 28th, 1914, salary as auctioneer. 1 William Henry Hawkins, plaintiff, giving evidence, said that he had started auctioneering about twenty years ago, but had not been auctioneering all the time since. On October 30th last -defendant wrote to witness suggesting that plaintiff should join him in his business. At an interview in New Plymouth defendant said he must have somebody and that witness seemed to be thorery man for the business. They discussed the question of a partnership, but witness said they were ticklish things and he did not then arrange a partnership because he did not know the defendant’s business or tho district.'‘ fearly in Novem her witness came to Stratford to further discuss the matter. Witness conducted the sale on that day and made inquiries •regarding the district. Somewhere .about November 25th witness again visited Stratford. He stayed at Mr Lama soil’s house and they discussed the question at great length. Defendant was very anxious to have a partnership hut witness would not entertain it, as his money was locked up in his farm. Defendant then suggested that witness should join the staff as auctioneer aiid manager. Defendant said he. could readjust the staff and

I . they could run the business between . JtHem./ Witness'took up his duties HfpUnh .y week 'ltefOre- December 11th. When witness topk up his • duties, defendant lufcrqducod all ,clients to him. mentioning that' witness was the auc- . In the early

stages they got on vel’y well together: Witness told defendant on one ocoasionM tact and. of’ a verjy variable temper. WfiEiilss'saw- soon aftpr starting that ' : ‘lhd'^u^r|e^s'.needed careful nursing. Just before Christmas defendant said: “What about a cheque?” Witness 'said the matter could bp settled later, that he had no need for money and that the business wanted,pH, (the, it could get. In January another cheque was offered, but witness said: “Don’t

bother about that—get things settled up,’.’'-/ Witness tried to get defendant :<T-torreadjust/ the staff as promised, but - he- would not. On the morning of March 28th witness noticed that defendant in'a vjfai-tic’ularly bad temper and hi the presence of a junior clerk he made certain insulting, statesaijdii u |fiyhu don’t think I. can run the sale, do it yourself.” Defendant was in a fearful rage. He said; “I will conduct my own sale. I am the best salesman in New Zealand. I can sell better than you.” Witness had never seen defendant sell, but remarked: “You are the greatest business muddler I have ever seen.” Witness then left but half an hour later he .returned. He knew defendant would be in a tight place .if he did not go back, as there was a big sale. Defendant expressed sorrow for the morning’s scene and witness conducted the sale, which was very successful. k On the following Monday witness interviewed defendant and asked that some settlement be come to. Defendant suggested a partnership and, also that witness should buy him out, but neither proposition was agreed to, even after an interview with Mr Crant, of the Union Bank. Then witness asked for payment for the work he had done, stating that since ho had been connected with the firm the business had trebled. Defendant said he had not promised to pay witness anything, and did not owe him anything. However, he admitted having tendered two cheques. Later on, witness offered to accept £4 per week if the amount was paid at once.. The increase in business was chiefly in furniture sales, Between sales witness did the general work of the office, and on occasions had gone to New Plymouth at defendant’s request to canvass for business. Mr Thomson: You say that you have been an. auctioneer for some years.— Witness : Yes. •■Air Thomson : You have had a varied career?—ln what way? Mr Thomson: Were you not at one time a co-operative laborer on the railways?—Yes. Bettor men than me have been so. The S.M. said such cross-examin-ation seemed irrelevant. Counsel said be desired to have the statement to show that plaintiff had not ben candid in his pleadings or evidence. Plaintiff said he did not mind his past hstory being gone nto. The S.M'.. : But I don’t want it. Cross-examination then proceeded. Witness told counsel tbata he bad interviewed an accountant named Carbines, who had been auditing defendant’s books. In the first interview at New Plymouth witness did not say to Lamason that if be went in partnership it would make bis (witness’) standing in the community better if lie stood for Parliament. At that time witness bad no intention of standing for Stratford and was actually announced to stand-for New Plymouth. Witness made out most of the advertisements for the papers, which were made out. however, with the approval of Lamason. Lamason was anxious that he should be dissociated from the selling part of the business,

and the insertion of witness’ name as auctioneer was approved by Lamason. Counsel: \on were announced foi the New Plymouth seat? The S.M. : What has that to do with the case? I hope we are not going to get any politics, I alivays make a point that we will have no politics here.

To Mr Thomson: Witness was introduced as the firm’s salesman ami auctioneer, but never as a partner or as a prospective partner. Witness could positively deny that he had ever mentioned, to two gentlemen named that he intended going into partnership with Lamason. Two cheques'-had been refused and witness would probably not have demanded his wages until after the end of March. At that time the business was going along very well. Witness was claiming £5 per week because be thought his services were worth that. Ho felt sure he. Was worth £5 per week. He had not claimed for damages for wrongful dismissal because he was not vindictive.. >1 itness was in the habit of going-to his home near New Plymouth now and again, hut on every occasion., ke consulted with Lamason. If Lamason had objected witness would noL have gone away. Witness was . absent at -the New Plymouth bowling tournament and at the Te Wera dog-trials, hut on such visits an eye was always kept open for business. Witness had not been in the (habit of leaving the office early to. play howls. On the few occasions hq had done so, he had tpld Lamason he was going. Witness obr served regular hours at the office. Alexander Grant, manager of the Union Bank, said ho had a very hazy idea of the visit paid to him by Lapiason and Hawkins. They had a discussion in his premises, but he did not take part and could not remember what they were saying. There was no cross-examination. (

Louis Hiera, accountant for Mr Newton King, gave, evidence that his firm had censed selling furniture sales; about December 1912. He presumed that his firm’s business in this line had been transferred to Mr Lamason. -A reasonable salary for a,n auctioneer was £2OO to £3OO per annum. • ; Campbell Jackson, in evidence, said he had heard Hawkins selling at the Mart sale every Saturday for the past few mouths. His opinion was that Hawkins was a competent auctioneer for the class of business, .- . , . ■ ■This closed the case for plaintiff, Thomas Isaac Lamason, the defendant, in evidence, Said he had a conversation with Mr RobsOn, and as. aresult wrote to plaintiff. Witness stating what the extent of the business was. Plaintiff seemed very pleased with the business, and said he desirous and-anxious to'get into such a business. Farming, he,said, did not agree with his wife. Plaintiff ■said he could do wonders in the business, doubling or trebling it. Plaintiff visited Stratfordi ■ In the course of discussion witness said the business would not stand paying Another man. Plaintiff suggested the sackiu.cr of the storeman and clerk, 'whom he said were wasters. Witness said, .he could not sack the storeman, and he told plaintiff it would he necessary fpr him to decidq definitely on the question of going into partnership; Kprly in December plaintiff visited Stratford again and stayed with witness Toy a few days.

Counsel: What did lie do?—He sat about and smoked his pipe and threw matches about my dining-room. Counsel: What did he do at the office?—-He made himself very affable and came in now and again. Continuing, witness said that on that visit he showed all his, books to Hawkins, who seemed very well pleased, and said the business could be increased. Plaintiff said he was very ambitious to get back into the House, and he said witness’ business woiffd suit him very well. As a sale was coming off, witness got his auctioneer’s license transferred to Hawkins, to give him an opportunity of fleejng what the business was like. Hawkins: jumped at the chance. About December 12th, Hawkins once more came to Stratford to inquire about the business. The question of wages was never discussed. Hawkins had ho work to do, hut was allowed to do certain correspondence, as. he wished to break the monotony. From time to time witness enquired of Hawkins regarding.the partnership, lint Ha whips put him off, patting him on the shoulder and saying: “Don’t worry about-that, my hoy. AVe will .talk about that later.’’ The cheques wore offered to Hawkins for hoard expenses. Hawkins only said . when the cheques wore offered; “I don’t want it, my hoy.” During the period claimed for, Hawkins was frequently away from Stratford, and never gave notice of his intention to he absent. Witness asked Dawkins more than half a dozen times to come to a definite agreement about the partnership, but he always put it off. The first definite answer given by Hawkins was on March 28th, when lie said he did not intend to go into the business. AVitness asked Hawkins if it was fair or just for him to make himself acquainted with the ins and outs of his business and then refused to join in partnership. If Hawkins had been an employee, witness would not have allowed him to absent himself as often as lie did. Du March 28th, Hawkins conducted the sale, as the license could not be re-trarisfeiTed to witness in time,: A\ itnoss had to go with plaintiff at all sales—lie could not trust him. The S.M.: And yet yog wished to take him into partnership ?~AVitness : He said he wanted me at the because f was a great help to him. He told me T. was a good man, and made other laudatory remarks about me. No doubt he was pulling my