A MANAGERS CLAIM.

Taranaki Daily News, 27 February 1922, Page 5

A MANAGERS CLAIM.

PROFITS OF A BUSINESS. RUSSELL VERSUS STAINTON. , On Saturday morning the Supreme Court at New Plymouth continued the hearing of the case of Herbert R. Russell v. Stainton and Co. and P. V. Stainton a claim for the taking of accounts on the question of paying Russell certain moneys alleged to be due to him for services as manager for Stainton and Co. Cross-examination of plaintiff was proceeded with by Mr. Croker. The witness contradicted the assertion that when they were discussing the balance sheet (which did not show a very good year) Stainton said apparently there was not room for the two of them in the business at that time. He admitted that the turnover in 1917 was £31,919, and in ’9lB £56,920, while in 1919 (during his year) it dropped to £lB,BOO. After Stainton’s return (the period May, 1919-1920) it rose again to £31,668, arid in 1921 was £31,688. He remembered that Stainton had said to him that it looked like a bad season ahead, and that if he (Russell) saw another opportunity of going into business, Stainton would not stand in his way. He thought the occasion of the above statement was in May, 1921, not in March, as counsel suggested. He took no part in the ordering of goods for the motor department, or in signing documents in connection with sales; neither was he consulted by anyone on any of these matters. He agreed that after Stainton came back his position really became that of salesman and commercial traveller for the firm. He knew he was leaving for some time, but did not mention anything about his account until the day he was leaving, when he wrote to Stainton, saying he was going to “hop out” on jiis own account. In 1919, when he was asked by Stainton to pay his account with the firm, he said he was hard up, but admitted not mentioning any suggestion that the firm should take it out of the profits due to him. He admitted that for the twelve months witness was managing there was very little profit, and that after Stainton resumed control the turnover had practically doubled.

W. P. Nicoll, New Plymouth, gave evidence as to making an investigation of the books of the company prior to Russell accepting the position. He knew of the proposed arrangement between the parties, and after his enquiries he estimated that Russell would get about £750 to £lOOO per year out of it. After Stainton’s return he had discussed business affairs with both Russell and Stainton, but heard no mention of any alteration in the arrangement between the parties. He thought he would have heard if there had been any cancellation of the agreement.

Mrs. Eileen' Ross, formerly employed by Stainton and Co., said that most of the letters which Russell signed were in connection with the grain and produce department.

The ease for plaintiff was concluded when the Court rose till 9.30 a.m. today. During the afternoon, however, the evidence of G. H. S. Pownall, la witness for the defendant, was aken. He was a representative of the Rubber Company, Wanganui, and leposed that after Stainton’s return from camp he did all his business through Stainton. Some months after defendant's return lie saw Russell, who said he was I iking after the produce department of the business.