COSMETIC-MAKING.

Auckland Star, Volume LXXI, Issue 204, 28 August 1940, Page 5

COSMETIC-MAKING.

SEQUEL TO DEAL.

ACTION AGAINST BROKER.

for the money in accordance with the contract and that it had been sent to him. Spencer read the letter which was dated three days after plaintiff had paid the £110 to Spencer.

A salesman, Bernard E. Jones, a young man of 22 years, sought to recover in the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon the sum of £110 from Frederick Spencer, broker, of Auckland. It was alleged that the defendant had held the money in trust, and in handing it over to a man named Thomas had committed a breach of that trust. Further, it was contended that Spencer had been in the position of stakeholder and had held the money on certain conditions, which plaintiff had alleged had not been complied with and, therefore, the money should not have been paid to Thomas. Plaintiff was represented by Mr. Smytheman and the defendant by Mr. Robinson. Giving evidence, the plaintiff, Jones, said he came to Auckland from Timaru about 15 months ago and had at the time £110. As a result of answering an advertieement in a newspaper he met Spencer and Thomas at an office in Security Buildings. Thomas explained that his business was that of manufacturing cosmetics, and on May 10 plaintiff and Thomas signed an agreement, certified to by Spencer, by which plaintiff was to become a partner in the business for the eum of £110, the money to be held upon trust by Spencer until Thomas had instructed Jones in the manufacture of cosmetics. A day or so later Jones paid £110 to Spencer, ■ getting a receipt, and the following day plaintiff saw Thomas at 39, His Majesty's Arca2e, and Thomas jshowed him how to make a line of van-' : ishing cream. He handed plaintiff 14 . formulae for making creams, but plaintiff said he could only make three. Tha' ! was about two months ago, and not| ('hearing again from him for some days.i . plaintiff asked Spencer where Thomas . was Spencer said he did not know and,| ! getting a little worried, plaintiff then : ) asked about the £110. Spencer said he had received a letter from Thomas asking

Thomas. He did not know the where abouts of Thomas.

Re-examined by Mr. Smytheman, plaintiff said that when he signed the receipt given to Thomas for the "formulae and methods of manufacture, etc., as per agreement," he did not consider he was signing an authority for Spencer to hand the £110 over to Thomas.

In answer to Mr. Robinson, plaintiff said he had read the agreement before he signed it and understood its contents. Spencer was to hold the money in trust until Thomas had instructed plaintiff in the manufacture of the cosmetics in the initial stages. Plaintiff admitted he had signed a receipt for "formulae, etc., as per agreement," and he knew that Thomas was to get the money when he had fulfilled the conditions of the contract. He realised that the receipt he had given Thomas was accepted by Spencer as authority for him to hand the money over to Thomas. Thomas had shown him how to make the vanishing cream, but not the cold cream, and plaintiff considered he had only indulged in the experimental stages and had not been instructed in the manufacture for commercial purposes. He saw nothing to suggest that Spencer wae in league with

Mr. Robinson said he did not intend to call Spencer to give evidence. Spencer had only acted as intermediary. Thomas had made a contract with Jones for a partnership in the business of manufacturing cold cream and vanishing cream. It was true Spencer had held the £110 to be paid over to Thomas when certain conditions had been complied with, Jones had given Thomas a document, which was later received by Spencer together with a demand for the money. Spencer had acted upon the document in perfectly good faith, believing that the obligation in the agreement had been performed by Thomas.

Mr. J. Morling, S.M., said he would reserve- judgment.