CIVIL BUSINESS.

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 215, 12 September 1888, Page 5

CIVIL BUSINESS.

Arthur D. Bennett v. North New Zealand Woollen Company. —This was an action in which \ the plaintiff sought to recover £467 10sy money due for services.and for .expenditure on behalf of the Company. There wasacounter claim by the Company for £473 14s 3d for money taken by Bennett and expended by him without 'authority/ Thefirst actioriwas discontinued, and the counter-claim was dealt with on Monday last.—His Honor then gave judgment for the defendant Company, and stated that he would look into the books to ascertain the amount to which the Company: was entitled. — Mr Humphreys appeared for the plaintiff and Mr; H. Campbell for the defendant Company. His Honor ; this morning said that he thought there \vas evidence that the plaintiff was to receive 6d per share with regard to certain shares. There was no evidence 4 that he had received . that, and i >it seemed that he might fairly give that commission to someone else to obtain the shares. He allowed the plaintiff Sundry commissions, £1015 sli d; Legge's commissions, £46 35,; of which £13 7s was admitted j by the defendants, themselves; £97t105! for a clerk at 15s per week, admitted by the defendants. As to the office rent, thel de-1 fendant admitted that there was n6;specified amount agreed upon, but simply that the plaintiff was to pay half the amount," Hia Honor; found that from t the beginning the plaintiff seemed to have charged £4 a month, and he thought it was not an reasonable amount. * These amounts 'were entered in the cashbook regularly j the directors must haveknownof themjandvirtually consented. His Honor therefore allowed 32 months' rent at £4 per month, £128, and sundry items admitted by the defendants £13 7s, making a total of £295 15s lid; This deducted from £666 10s; 3d, left £370 14e 4d, for which amount judgment was given.'with costs on the middle scale. His Honor said that in disallowing many of these items thejre might be hardship done to the, plaintiff, but he had bnly himself to thauk for that, inasmuch as hehad charge of the Company's books. If he received authority from the.directoi's, verbal or otherwise, he ought to have entered that in his book for reference. No one in the service of a public company was entitled to pay money for the • Company without the express authority of the directors. If . jthe plaintiff • neglected to have that authority duly recorded^ and the directors denied that he had such authority1, although the plaintiff aasei'ted that he had, it was his own fault if there was no evidence of. itj and; he must suffer for it. Judgment for £370 14s 4s, with costs on the middle scale.