COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION AGENCY.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 231, 23 June 1908, Page 11

COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION AGENCY.

THE CASE CONCLUDED.

JUDGMENT RESERVED

The thrice adjourned- case, Rosina Wright (Mr. Von Haast) v. Vanda White (Mr. Levvey), in' which plaintiff claimed £30 for alleged.fraudulent' misrepresentation, was continued before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M., yesterday afternoon.

Defendant was'further cross-examined by Mr. Von. Haast in reference to the previously discusso'd visit to Otaki. Ho said ho, was anxious to avoid a scandal, but it did not occur to him to give another namo. He was well-known in Otaki, having canvassed the ;district. Besides the advertisements inserted in the "Post" and The Dominion advertising for partners, witness had probably .placed three or four others for a typi6t and a partner. He remombered an advertisement signed "Minerva" as follows: —"Wanter lady for office; typewriting clerking taught free. Rising salary.. Small premium.— ' Mindrva,' Dominion -Office." Witness wrote , to a certain lady in this connection and;she-came to see him. Later a gentleman,friend of the lady's saw him. This was after Miss Wright loft. The, by-. Miss Wright that witness had a similar arrfengement'with others was correct. W itnbss went on to give particulars of amedical agency 'business. He. was to interview likely persons and get a commission for referring them to a principal. Witness did not know . the principal's' address, and could not er- . plain the medical business. Miss Wright'had had;the opportunity of examining witness's pass, book.- Besides the £28 (part of complainant's deposit (put. into. the business by Miss Wright'there was no other payment into the biihk until after sho left. Witness did not tell Miss Houlder -that Miss Wright had bought for £30, as .it would have prevented her selling out for £60. Tho share ■ had ; gone ■up in value,' because the business had . since been organised. Thcro was something to sell. , ■Mr. Von Haast: You had to sell the experience of 20 years' organising. I suppose ihtiy got the experience, and you got the cash.—Witness: I don't , know. . .

Mr. Lovvoy wished to produce at this stage a letter from a gentleman to whom defendant had sold his Dunedin agency. Mr. Von Haast objected as the letter had been written since the case began. After some argument his Worship' ruled that the letter could not be produced. ' . Continuing, Mr.. Levvey, produced another letter in rbferdnco to the sale of the Christchurch agency. Mr.' Voii Haast raised the question that tho letters Should, have been produced before in compliance with a notice to: produce given by'.'plaintiff. It was eventually decided that the-letter,/should, go in and that counsel for plaintiff could'cross-examine on it. /To Mr.' Levvey: Witness had thought it advisable ,to hold, on to..his ready money in cbnsoquonce/rif threats to smash lip'the business.

To his Worship: Miss Wright knew, witness '.was going to Otaki. He did not ask her.ito gojwith him, and did not know sho was on the'train'until nearing Otaki, when he, left , his smoking carriage and walked through.,'the"train. .Witness expressed. Kis surprisi at seeing her, and she said sho had something.to.tell him. His Worship: Didn't yon express surprise that sho did not tell ,vou before ?—Witness: Yes, and I told her I thought she was in the office. .- v . ■ Witness,: continuing; said Miss Wright did tell him' 1 something later, in the evening, but it had nothing'.to do with the business..v., . • .His: Worship: : Why. did -you not send the girl back in tho next train if you were'so' anxious to avoid scandal?

Witneis: " There was no train." '.'His. Worship,; - You ; should not,, make . a Btateniont .like that.. I have looked up: tho timetable and found there was a train back. You could have discussed tho business oil the platform .for 40 minutes,-, and sent tho girl back to town by the down train. Witness: I didn't knoiV"there was a train.

This concluded the evidence,-and his Worship intimated that he :■ would give his decision on;Thursday.r : ■. ,