COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS' EXPENSES

Evening Star, Issue 12606, 11 September 1905, Page 3

COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS' EXPENSES

♦ I A TRIP TO NEW ZEALAND. I In the Sydney Distract Court last week, I before Judge Backhouse, Felix SchmeHitscheck and Paul Schwartz, indent agents, trading as the Foreign Agency, sued Ed- ! ward Pauley, commercial traveller, for a ' sun of £6l 15s sd, balance of account. According to the case for the plaintiffs, defendant had been ton a number of years in their employment as a traveller. He went to New Zealand on then: behalf on January 4 Jest, and retained on March. 27. While away, he either received from them or collected on their behalf £l6B 13s Bd. Defendant, on his rotam,' claimed a sum of £154 3s 8d for the expenses of his trip. Plaintiffs gave him credit for £lO6 17s 3d, and now soed for the balance. It was stated that defendant -was accompanied on the top. by his wife. One of the plaintiffs, Felix SuhmeJhtscheck, stated in his evidence that he had done the trip for £7l lis, or at the rate of 23s a day; whereas the defendant's expenses were at the rate of about £2 a day. A commercial traveller in plaintiffs' employment, who had just , returned from the New Zealand trip, gave j evidence as to having done it for £92, hav- { iag been, eighty-four days away. i The defence was that the defendant had authority to expend the money sued for, i and that lie laid it oat in forwarding' the ' interests of the plaintiffs. His Honor said it was perfectly clear from the evidence given by plaintiffs and by witnesses for defendant that the practice was that expenses were accepted if considered reasonable, bat that an employer in no way gave up his right, if he thought the expenses were excessive, to call upon the commercial traveller to furnish a statement, and that clearly was what had taken place here. He did not think it coufcl be contended, even if a statement was accepted, that that would cover the case of a man spending some extravagant sum, and saying " You mu-t take my word for it" In this case defendant's accounts were so muddled that he coold not say what he legitimately had sponU His Honor disbelieved defendant's story. On the question of what were reasonable allowances he accepted plaintiffs' evidence. It seemed to him that the defendant had 1 been allowed liberal expenses. There were a couple of items defendant was entitled to, and His Honor found, after allowing for them, for plaintiffs in the sum of £45 19s 3d.