A CLAIM FOR EXPENDS.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVII, Issue 71, 23 March 1906, Page 5

A CLAIM FOR EXPENDS.

j -A' l action was commenced in the | Court this morning before i < ; Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., becween Albert | 1 Robins i Mr. McVeagh i and the Gal- ! < i braith iron and Steel ( ompany. Ltd. [ 1 ! I Mr. Cotter i, in which the plaintiff j J ; claimed for his services and espouses the i ■ I sum of £184 3/4. This amount was .1 { ; based upon the agreement of £600 for | 1 ! nine months. : 1 Mr. McVeagh, in opening the case for '< * the plaintiff, said that Mr. Galbraith. : ) from wL/Bi the company derived its < , name, was the inventor of a patent ap- ] j pliance for treating irou sand. Asi soeiated with him was Mr. Steward. Tlie '. appliance was patented, and the com- j : J pany was formed to develop it. Tlie , ' I members 0 f the company entertained j | very -anguine expectations of the inven- | j tion. and it was thought that, if a de- i i monstration was made in the Old Coun- > : try and in America, a very large sum ! i woulil be derived from the sale of the I i parent rights. With this object i n view Messrs. Galbraith, Stewart, and Robins . | were sent Home, the latter as the busi- : | ness man to the two experts. It was | i I agreed between the plaintiff and the de- j i fendant company that the plaintiff j j should be paid for his services and ex- j ; peases in connection with the trip the! I sum of £(iOO. based upon an estimated | j absen<> from the colony of nine months, i , A power of attorney was prepared and . handed to the attorneys, and also a letter of instruction. The three men went. Ito England, and took steps to interest ', j people in the invention. The preparation ' |of the furnace and transformer was the • j cause of great delay, which caused the i ■ : attorneys to be absent longer than the j 1 | nine months, on which basis the agree- | meat was framed. A public demonstra-1' 1 j tion. owing to some technical causes, 1 ! ' j proved unsatisfactory, and two of the ' | attorneys decided to go to America.. Tn ' j their correspondence with the company |' "j the attorneys gave the company to un-[ ' ! demand that they meant to go to Ame- > I rica. and Mr. McVeagh contended that j jno objection*to this course wa3 raised.! j Messrs. Robins and Stewart went to P . I New York, and endeavoured to dispose j > lof the patent, but without success, and <' ' ' they subsequently returned to New Z.?a- P j land. The two attorneys "'ere absent . | for about twelve months. The plaintiff ) • only received a remuneration calculated j •on the basis of nine months, and so ! [claimed remuneration on that basis for! .the remaining thre,? months. Mr. Mc-j I Veagh said his object was to show that _ | the company virtually approved of tbe j ,' action of the attorneys, notwithstanding j \ i that the original time had expired. , ' I Mr. Cotter said be could find nothing) in the correspondence which showed that! 'j at or about the nine months, the at- ! torteeys communicated with the com-j " ! panv stating their decision to return un- j ' 1,-ss" otherwise instructed. These three j ' | attorneys, however, said Mr. Cotter, held | 5 ! an interest in the company of over two- | r I thirds, and »n they were more interested j ' ' than all the re*t >>f the company, and if! 1 ! there were profits those three gentle- ' ' men would get tun-thirds. } Mr. McVeagh: This is the plaintiff. and it does not matter one jot what r \ shares are bold by the other attorney. r I Mr. Cotter did" not deny that cables c and letters passed between the parties, r but up to the time of tV return to 3 j Auckland there wa« no mention of the f ! attorneys making any additional charge. | (Proceeding.) - '