SM. COURT.

Bush Advocate, Volume XVIII, Issue 581, 1 December 1906, Page 5

SM. COURT.

m Yesterday. (Before Mr W.P.James, S.M.) C. H. T. Skelley t. Norman L Gurr, claim £130 8s Bd, balance of salary due under a 12 months' engagement. Norman Leslie Gurr, land and insurance agent, continuing his evidence, said the butt of the policy book produced was in Skelley's writing. George Charteris deposed that he went to Mr Gurr's office on 28th June to insure his Weber property in the State office. Mrs Gurr and Mr Skelley "were there at the time. Mr Gurr said "Mr Skelley was his insurance clerk and •he would hand him over to him. Witness gave Skelley particulars of the property, and of the Mangatoro as well. He did all the business with Mr Skelley, and he would -swear that he told Skelley there was a mortgage on the property. He subsequently had further business with Skelley at a plough trial, when he gave him particulars of the Mangatoro property. To Mr Lloyd : He did all the business with Skelley He had no recollection of signing a blank form for Mr Gurr, but he would not say that he did not sign one. It was at the plough trial on 7th August that Skelley* told witness that the first policy had not been completed, and it was then that he refunded the cheque for the premium which witness had paid. To Mr Lusk : He was positive that he did no business with Mr Gurr on 28th June. John Walter Brindley, general mana ger of the State Fire Office, deposed that Skelley was at one time a clerk in the State Office. He was introduced into the office by Mr Pope. Skelley wat on the books for about two months. During that time witness thought he -was not making the progress that he should have made. Subsequently Skellev came |to him and said that his -work at the books was injuring bis health and he asked to be put to other work. Witness then told him he had better leave the office. He was afterwards put on as a clerk at £100 a yaar. After he had left the office to come to "Dannevirke it was discovered that Skelley had neglected his work. Proposals for insurance were received from Mr Charteris and three of them were returned as they were not correct. Mr Skelley had altered the interim policies, and had not apprised the office of the fact. The effect of that was that the •office was insuring people whom they did not know anything abou.. A notice of Gurr's removal to another office .should have been sent to the head office, -otherwise the policy would be voided. Ihe booksnn the office were not •difficult to keep. To Mr Lloyd: He had no friction with \Lt Skelley, and he was not taking a special interest in the case. He did not remember whether he had formulated any questions which might be used in the course of the case. He would not swear whether he had or had not. Mr Lloyd : Since you put it in. that way it is difficult for me to ask what -questions you have suggested. ' Mr Brindley : You are on a fishing expedition. Mr Lloyd : I have a right to be on a fishing expedition. Skelley was first engaged as a general clerk. The bookkeeper is senior to that -office, and when Skeiley was made bookkeeper he recommended him for an increase of salary. This recommendation , was made in the report of Mr Jones. There was nothing specially difficult in Iceeping the cash book. Skelley made no improvement in keeping the cash book up-to-date. He did not tell Mr Gurr that Skelley was unsatisfactory in the State Office He simply gave a general recommendation. He considered Mr Pope's position in the office a responsible one, and he sometimes asked Mr Skelley to do his work, as he thought he was competent to do it. He was annoyed with Skelley when he, acting on medical advice, did not come back to work at nights, as he did not consider it fair to the other clerks. He thought he got on harmoniously with his staff. He ad no friction with any of them except Mr Skelley. To Mr Lask— When Mr Von Haast was in Mr Gurr's office the insurance work was well done. The work should take no more than an hour or two each day. John Holmes Dean, resident agent for the Government Life Department at Napier, deposed that Mr Gurr wrote to him -regarding an accident in which Mr Senk was concerned, and from the letter witaess gathered that th« premium bad not been paid. Skelley came to his office, introduced himself, and discussed business generally. Witness referred to the unsatisfactory manner in which the business in Gurr's office was being transacted. Senk's transaction was mentioned and Skelley was asked if Mr Senk had not been given a receipt on one of the Department's forms. Skelley said no, but an amount had been paid to the girl in the office, and an ordinary •cash receipt given. Skelley apparently made t-iese statements of his own accord, and did not say anything to lead witness to understand he was conveying a message from Mr Gurr. Cheque put in showing that premium was paid two ■days before Skelley went to Napier, but •bank slip did not reach witness until >next day. The trouble was that one of Senk's employees met with an accident ;and it appeared that Senk was not covered, because the premium had not been paid until after the accident happened. - To M.r Lloyd: Skelley!s statement appeared to be a peculiar one, and witness understood from him that he was not authorised to come to witness' 'Oftce and make any statement. Witness ■had been complaining as to the delay in sending forward papers from Mr Gurr's j ■office. Did not remember having written j to Gurr stating that two explanations I had been" given re Senk's transaction. Letters on accident business were sometimes written by Skelley, but more ■frequently by Gurr. The loss was paid because it was apparent that Senk had &een given to understand he was

covered, and the office decided to stand by its agent in the matter. C. H. Christiansen, called by Mr Luak, deposed to calling at Gurr's offic* on 19th September, saw Skelley -. asked if he was head man, Skelley said Gurr was out ; witness saw Gurr, who in Ms presence instructed Skelley to inspect properties and fix rate ; this waa not done ; six weeks after saw Gurr, who fixed matter up. Witness was not to tell Skelley anything further in regard to the buildings, or as to which property he wanted insured. It was understood that all the houses were to be insured. Skelley had been at witness' house on a previous occasion. He introduced himself and produced Gurr's card. Business was not discussed on that occasion. At Mr Lloyd's suggestion, Mr Lusk agreed to get copies of Charteris' policies I and have portions filled in by Gurr underlined to show what portion was filled in by Gurr and what portion by Skelley. At this stage the case was further j adjourned until 14th December. — a__— _————_— —————— —_—r— a