THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17629, 5 December 1922, Page 4

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT. ClVlXi SESSIONS. (Before his Honour Mr Justice Adams.) CLAIM FOR COMMISSION. William Wallace McClelland, commercial traveller, sued his brother, Henry McCielland, indent agent, Christch.urch, for settlement of commission alleged- to bo duo, and asked that accounts should he- taken. Jir A. T. Donnelly appeared fox plaintiff andi Mr C. S. Thomas for the defendant. Plaintilf set out that ou December 13th, I§l9, defendant agreed to employ him as commercial traveller at £3OO per annum and 20 per cent, commission on sale 3 secured. The agreement was mutually determined in June, 1921. Defendant had paid £2OO in respect to commission botween December 13th, 1919, and June, 1921, but had not rendered any account of the total commission, which was substantially in excess of the £'2oo. Plaintiff asked for accounts to be taken of ths sales 'secured by him and the commission due to him. The defence was a general denial of plaintiff's statement, and alleged that defendant > paid plaintiff £IOO in settlement of all commission due. In a counter-claim defendant' alleged that plaintiff was allowed to draw oi defendant's hanking account for travelling, . and was handed valuable goods as sf/mples', but disposed of some of them instead of returning them as instructed. It was also alleged that plaintiff secretly and wrongfully acted as a. commercial traveller for other firms and secretly and corruptly received and retained commiFaion, the amount of which was unknown to defendant. He asked tha'/ accounts should be taken of moneys draw: j by plaintiff from defendant's banking account, of the amount due after disposal 'if samples by plaintiff, and of commission pa id by persons other than defendant to plain'/iff and wrongfully retained by plaintiff. "Defendant also a pied for payment of all eiims found to be duo on the talcing of those, accounts.

Plaintiff, in his defence to the counterclaim, denied that the sums drawn fr< ira defendant as expenses, were substantial. Sir Donnelly said that the main < controversy was whether there was a seij .lad account for commission due to play ltiff. It was alleged by defendant that h:V; brj :>ks were destroyed in a. fire in Heyivood'a ) .tiildiiigs, but, even if they wet® destroyed, ; the commission duo to plaintiff could be t» jcertained by consulting invoices of goods seij t by English manufacturing firms represent! in JS'ew Zealand by defendant. / Plaintiff said that he travella 1 through New Zealand for defendant, who/ represented an English firm of manufacturer's of velour hats, sail-cloth, vrool'.ens, millinery, linens, and hardware. 0.1 account of the slump in 1921, defendant cf.'ercd to withdraw to make tilings easier farr his brother, but the defendant asked him i.ot to do that, and agreed to pay him £7 a Week without commission instead of £6 a.' weeik with 20 per cent, commission. He r/.-ceived no commission frcm June, 1920, to' June, 1921. To Mr Thomas: There h?.-j been trouble on one occasion, with his brotl/.f ir on account of expenses. Plaintiff gave b.i J brother a return of all. expenses. H& fjdmitted that he drew in Wellington, £37 erfxptnses in 13 days, and in "VTauganui £lB in thtree days, making a total of '-£55 in 16 days. Ell explanation of the difference in dates on the cheques drawn aixid on the butiis of. the cheque book, plaintiff said that the »nistakcs had occurred .through his filling ,'in the butts later from his note-book. defendant admitted that he had taken ; ordcus for other firms. His brother knew cf a good many- of those orders. Plaintiff did'- not receive any commission on those oniers. During the slump it was a common tiling; for travellers to be asked to iry to plac 3 lines {or other firms. To Mr Donnelly: !}\o claim of any kind had been made against) plaintiff bv his brother until he had brougl it the present action.

Defendant said tj lat ho had never had a. detailed account or his brother's expenses. Counsel put in ; a file of letters written by plaintiff to defendant, which, it was submitted, showed thut thero had been trouble over the expenses.; His Honour said, that he was not satisfied with the evidence; on either side. There was nothing to show, tihat there had been any improper retentiCfHi of moneys. In both cases the parties had allowed to claims to sleep. In law b«>tli probably had a right to

have accounts Izkcn, involving: each in heavy expenses. Hislljonour did not think that In would be justified in making tm Qijlei' foi accounts for /e'/ther plaintiff or defendant. He was dispof .ed to think that defendant had paid up the/ 'tommission owed, to plaintiff Both claims :wpuld be dismissed without oosts on either eil hi.

; MAGISTERIAL. ■ .. MONDAY. (B« fere Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M.) DRUNKENNESS. A fir sfc offender was fined the amount of hi 3 brV il, £l, in default 2'l houxa' imprisonment./ I VAGRANCY. Mif ha el Hughes, aged 48 years, pleaded guiltry to a charge of being a rogue and ■vagi bond in that ho was found with insufliciciit lawful visible means' of support. Sergeant A. G. Quartermain said ho had fou nd accused in an old stable at Mairehau. 4.iii was naked, and his few rugs of clothes v* :ro in a corner. He had had very little to> eivt, and was in a starving condition. ForuiierVy he had been a blacksmith, but drink had; got him down He was in a wealc state owing to drink and lack of food. There wa i a previous conviction against him for be'/ng an idle and disorderly person. ,The Magistrate: Ho has convictions as f' ir back as 1901. "I understand he is a good tradesman when ho keeps off the drink," said the Ser,'geant. : Accused was oonvicted and sentenced to one year's imprisonment with hard labour. "A WEE DROP." A youth, aged 19 years, pleaded guilty that, on December 3rd, he wilfully damaged a glass window to the extent of £1 la, the property of T. W. Stephenson. Sub-Inspector Simpson said accused had put Iris fist through a window on Saturday night. He was with some other young men, who had evidently had some drink. "I had a. wee bit of drink," accused admitted. "You otight to be ashamed of yourself getting drunk at your age," said the Magistrate. "Fined 20s and ordered to pay the damage, in default seven days' imprisonment." Accused: Could I have my name suppressed ? The Sub-Inspector: We don't know anything against him. The Magistrate: Well, I will extend that leniency to you thi3 lime. REMANDED. George Gough (Mr I'. T). Sargent; was charged that on Hay 22nd, he stole two razors, a camera, four silk shirts, cue gold ring, one silver wristlet watch, an Onoto fountain pen, a leather tuit case, a suit of pyjamas, and £8 14r. in cash, of a total value of £32. the property of George Dixon. On the application of the police he was remanded until Wednesday, the bail being renewed on the same sureties as before. CIVIL BUSINESS. Judgment by default was B »iven for the plaintiff in each of the following cases:—Booth Macdonald and Co., Ltd. v. J. J. O'Connor" £lO G3 8d; Hoy Twyneham v. Edward John Barnes, £3 3s; Beath and Co., Ltd., v. W. J. Skilling, £l3 19s 3d; Booth, Macdonald and Co., Ltd.. v. T. J. Dulfv, £4 5s- Public Trustee v. J. Buddie, 5.% ijj (id; Glasson and Co. v. J. Halm, £l3 6s 3d; W. Strange and Co.. Ltd., v. Andrew Monkish, £G ISs* Ballin Bros. Ltd., v. E. W. G. Smith, £l6O lis; H. Woolf v. T. R. Lee, £5 16s; W. P Garder v. 11. Collins, £3 17c Id; same v George Aldridge. £2 12s 8d; Frank A. Cook' Ltd., v. Eva Maud Richardson, £6 15 s 7d-' same v. Alfred Lewis, £l3 2s 4d ' Harold Bromley Kay, teleeraphist of 40 "Warwick street, Richmond (Mr Ellinraorth) proceeded against Mary Jane Comer, of 05 Nursery Toad, Linwood (Mr W. F Tracvl for possession of a dwelling. Judgment was Riven ior plaintiff for £1 16s. mesne profits and dofenaant was ordered to »ive uo nnl' session of the house on or before De«mber J. Cogan contractor, of 13 Grafton street V oolston 'Mr E. W. White), claimed from L. TV. Balkind, .financial agent, of Chri=t church {Mr T. W. Howe), the sum of £ L 4s ?d. He allesed that by virtue of a partnership agreement between the parti-s was entitled to hrlf the net proceeds" from certain timber and wood on a section of land situated in W oolston. Defendant had received £205 2s 3d a* proceeds from the sate of the timber, and out of that amount

\s had paid out .£OB 14s 2d for debts. Judgment was given for defendant, with costs.

RANGIOTtA. (Before Mr Wyvern Wilson, S.M.). H. Mlirfitt was fined 2Gs and co3ts 23s for allowing 13 head of cattle to be at large on Green's road, ,'l'uahiwi. A. F. Qmnu, charged on the information of his wife with being £53 in arrears of maintenance, was ord'oied to pay £3 per week, failing payment, the cast to be brought up again in January. Judgment by default was given for plaintiff in each of the following cases: —U. S. Stevenson v. C. Driscoll, £sl 13d Sd; G. W. Pearson and Son v. A. Cooksley, 12s 6d; li. M. Cant v. William E. Crane, £7 10s. Sarah Jano Melling claimed, the sum of £2OO from James Griffiths, farmer, Gust, for 'failing to comply with tli3 term 3of a lease. Mr E. j). 11. Smith appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Archer for defendant. The evidence in this case was heard when Ward and Co. sued. Mrs Helling for breach of agreement in connexion with the lease o;' tlio Cust Hotel and' farm, the iarm baing sub-let to Griffiths. Judgment was given ior plaintiff by consent for £B(i 0s ildi with costs £5 14s. Wilfred Martin claimed f rom J. T. Wright, and P. 1.. Wright the sum of £lO 17s for damages to u motor-cycle and sid;-ehair through a horse negligently d'rivtn by defendants colliding with the mo-or cycle. Plaintiff was non-suited on the ground that the motor-cycle was not his property, having been borrowed, as hi 3 own was being repaired. Mr Itippcnbergcr appeared for plaintiff and Mr Livingstone for defendants.

E. La.skcy (Mr Kippenbergsr) claimed fro,m J. T. and P. L. Wright (Mr £3 7s Gd for loss of wages received through an accident by tlio negligence of defendants wLile driving horses near the Cain bridge on Septs'nber 20th Judgment wai given for plaintiff for the amount claimed with £2 6s Cd costs.