ACTION AGAINST AGENTS

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 15, 12 October 1927, Page 7

ACTION AGAINST AGENTS

PROPERTY SOLD WITHOUT AUTHORITY

Palmerston North, October 11. The dishonesty of a farm manager, who sold stock belonging to his employer, keeping proceeds of sales for himself resulted in a case possessing unusual features coming before Mr. J. L. Stout, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court to-day. The case wirs one in which George Duncan Beatson, farmer, of Hastings, claimed from Abraham and Williams, Ltd., stock agents, of Palmerston North, £l5B 19s. 10d„ this being the proceeds of sheep, wool, skins _ and crutchings sold without his authority by the defendant firm. In evidence plaintiff stated that ho had a farm at Hastings and also one at Oringi. The latter property was managed by one .Mitchell, who supervised farming operations for witness. tjWitness. however, attended personally to all transactions in respect of the sale of stock and visited the farm every two or three months. Ho bred and fattened stock on the property, the fat sheep being disposed of to freezing works and cull sheep being privately sold by plaintiff on his property. He had never had dealings with the defendant firm. Mitchell had been employed by witness since 1915 and since 1918 at Oringi. In March last witness whs informed that Mitchell had unlawfully disposed of sheep, wool and skins to the value of £330. these being plaintiff’s own property. Oddments of wool and skins, said witness, were supposed to have been forwarded for disposal to Dannevirke firms, but witness had found out that a certain Quantity had been sent by Mitchel! to Palmerston North. The’se had been sold through the agency of the defendant firm. Mitchell had subsequently pleaded guilty To theft and had been admitted to probation by the Supreme Court and ordered to make good the value of half the stolen stock.

Evidence was also given by George William Mitchell, who admitted having sold sheep and skins belonging to plaintiff without his authority and without having accounted for them to plaintiff. It had been admitted that at the time of the sale of the sheen the brands were old and could not be determined by the defendant firm. Decision was reserved. *