A DISPUTED CLAIM.

Taranaki Daily News, 18 July 1917, Page 6

A DISPUTED CLAIM.

QUESTION OF PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. Judgment was given 'by Mr. A. Crookc, S.M., at the Naw il-'ly.moii'Vh Magistrate's Court yesterday in the defended case James W. West (Mr. F. E. Wilson) v. Gordon Elliot (Mr. A. A. Bennett), claim for £ll os for horse hire, livery and goods supplied. Bis Worship said the debt had been contracted! by a man named A. €. McDonnell, and at the time the plaintiff did not know that McDonnell was not the principal. Afterwards plaintiff found out that Elliot was the principal and McDonnell his agent, and charged the accounts to Elliot. The agreement existing between Elliot and McDonnell was that the latter was to manage the farmer's 'arm at Oakura, to carry on the milking," and to incur the necessary ex■nenditurc for seed, manure, ett'. McDonnell's remuneration to be one half the gross receipts from the products ofthe farm. Tor the defendant Mr. Btmnot had raised a ipoint that Elliot and McDonnell were equal ■partners, tout he (His Worship) did not think the evidence established that relationship. McDonnell had no interest in the land and no interest in the actual profits, except in the profits from a few pigs which belonged to tooth. There was no evidence of any partnership; the relationship between the two seemed to bo that of principal and agent and the principal was bound by any acts of his agent within the scope of his agency. The case had been allowed to stand over to allow the defendant, whose evidence had been taken at Feilding, to make a declaration in ansiwer in some questions by .plaintiff's solicitor, but the declaration had not been made, the defendant had ignored the request that he should make it, and now the Court was asked to give judgment on the evidence before it. In these circumstances all he (His Worship) had to decide was what items in the claim could fairly '!>e considered as items within the authority of McDonnell's agency. His Worship then dealt with the items in detail, and finally save judgment for £0 with costs amounting to £2 'l'ss.