CONTRACT NOT PROVED

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1074, 11 September 1930, Page 16

CONTRACT NOT PROVED

SERVICE DRIVER’S CLAIM FOR £224 COMPANY PROPRIETOR SUED Whether a daily return Auckland - Hamilton service had been conducted as a “ticket run," or on the basis of a special hire contract, was the principal issue involved in a claim for £224 heard by Mr. Justice Herdman in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon. The action was brought by a servicecar driver, John Hector Dalbeth (Mr. Webb), against Andrew James Markey (Mr. Grant), proprietor of the Aard Service at Auckland. Dalbeth claimed that from January 31 to February 25, under a verbal agreement with Markey, on the basis of £6 a return trip daily, he made 31 return journeys between Auckland and Hamilton. H*» then conducted the service as a “ticket run” until March 25. After the plaintiff had testified along these lines, his Honour described the evidence of the arrangement to pay Dalbeth £6 daily for the return trip as very feeble. In the witness-box, Markey, who said he acted as booking agent at Auckland for the 25 Aard services from here, said that the arrangement made with Dalbeth was the same that applied to all other services, witness receiving 10 per cent of the earnings:. He strongly refuted the suggestion that he had undertaken to pay Dalbeth £6 daily for the return trip. This evidence was corroborated by defendant’s sister, who acted as bookkeeper in the business. Mr. Justice Herdman said that it was extremely difficult to arrive at a just conclusion because the plaintiff’s methods of finance were so bewilderingly intricate that it was almost impossible to arrive at the real truth. He held that Dalbeth had failed to prove that there had been any arrangement entitling him to payment at the rate of £ 6 a day, but the judge considered that he would be entitled to payment for the trips on a “ticket run’’ basis on the waybills and tickets he produced. The hearing was adjourned sine die to permit counsel to confer on a number of items.