MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 10 February 1926, Page 9

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

TO-DAY’S SITTING

(Before Mr J. S. Barton, S.M.)

SHARE OF PROFITS CLAIMED

ALLEGATION OF BOOKMAKING.

A claim of £9O was made by Fred Jewell against H. McKay. Mr. H. B. Gibson, for the plaintiff, said that his client, Jewell, was claiming £9O which, with £6 already paid, represented half of the profits made by defendant on 90 bead of cattle bought bv plaintiff as defendant’s agent and cared for by the plaintiff. Plaintiff, who had been dealing in cattle for a considerable time, had recently been adjudicated bankrupt. After his adjudication defendant saiv Jewell, and an arrangement was arrived at whereby Jewell should do cattle dealing in the name of defendant, and should graze the animals on defendant’s farm, .-.The arrangement w'as that the profit on the cattle should be halved, but the only money Jewell received was a paltry £6. Jewell, in his evidence, told of the arrangement made with McKay, stating that he was trusting McKay to do him a good turn as he had indicated. McKay and he attended various sales -together, and McKay may have bid for some of the cattle. Jewell said he visited other sales -without McKay and bought cattle cheap, putting the cattle on to McKay’s farm. Plaintiff said that the understanding was that he would get his share when all the cattle were sold. Plaintiff later saw McKay and asked him for £25 in order to buy some cattle which he wished to put on a native section. McKay said he would give him the money if he could get the section, nut it turned out that the section had been leased to another man. Jewell then asked McKay if he would give King, the proprietor of the hotel at which he was staying, a cheque for his board as he was short of money. McKay said something to the effect that lie would see that the board was all right. Cross-examined dv Mr. F. C. Spratt, who appeared for defendant, Jewell said that McKay saiv him four times 'before the agreement was entered, into. During the time that he was buying and selling cattle for McKay and himself he did no other work. Plaintiff said that there should be some mention in the statement, of claim to show that he was due one-third of profits in respect of 30 to 35 bulis, which were also handled.

Before plaintiff’s case was closed it was agreed that only evidence as to whether or not there was a contract between the parties should be given, sc that the magistrate could give a, ruling on the point. The matter of accounts, if a contract- was proved, ■you'd be settled later.

For the defence Mr Spratt contendthat- there was no partnership or wages agreement, and claimed that Jewell, in view of‘his reputation as a bookmaker, wanted some job to give him an established status. No suggestion had been made to the defendant that the bankruptcy had anything to do with the agreement. All :l e plaintiff had asked of McKay was something to pay his board, Jewell to make himself generally useful as he travelled around the country.

McKay, in his evidence, said that Jewell had told him l that he would be satisfied if his remuneration covered his .board. There was never any suggestion of sharing profits. Jewell wanted something to do so that the nolice would not be able to- say anything to him. Mr. GMason’s cross-examination was directed to show the unlikeliness! of Jewell agreeing to buy for McKay, for the remuneration of Ins per week —the amount of hi.s hoard. Out-of-pocket expenses in travelling to and attending wiles would amount to more than Ins pc: week. Proceeding.