MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLII, Issue 115, 16 May 1908, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

CORRY AND CO. v. R. HENDRA

The civil case of Corry and Co. v. Ralph Hendra, a claim of £45 9s for goods sold and delivered and cash lent, was heard before Mr ScottSmith, ' S.M., yesterday afternoon. The defendant counter-claimed for a month's wagesj £10, and travelling expenses amounting to £85 15s; Defendant also claimed £61 14s 2d, commission on sales of barley. Mr A'. Rogers appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Churchward appeared for defendant. The plaintiff's claim was admitted, and all that was necessary was that the counter-claim be gone on with, Mr Churchward said that he would put in an alternative to the first counter-claim of £10 per month wages during £he specified time and out-of-pocket expenses. Ralph Hendra deposed that he was employed in the first place in January, 1906, by the plaintiff as outside buyer. He was to get £10 per month and all expenses. He received the salary. He did not render his account for expenseSj as he thought he was getting them through the store, and that was why he incurred the debt which Mr Corry had against him. He would not have incurred the debt from the store if he had thought Mr Corry would dispute his expenses account. Neither side had rendered any account. Plaintiff had never asked him for payment of the store's account, and he went on thinking that it was a contra account to put against his expenses. In regard to; the second claim, witness went out to Seddoai and bought a line or two of barley for plaintiff, and the arrangement was that he was to receive commission on what he bought at a certain price. He knew the book produced (the sale book of the plaintiff). -Witness then detailed the quantity of barley he bought on account of | Corry and Co.,' at under 5s 6d per bushel. Commission was only allowed him at Id per bushel on Knes bought at under 5s 6d per bushel. By Mr Rogers: He was discharged by Mr! Corry about October,. 1907. That was, he left without intimation to Mr Corry. At that time plaintiff ] was indebted to defendant for the sum claimed in the counter-claim. Corry put his last month's wages in his own pocket, and afterwards Corry told him that he had credited him with the amount. He had not sent in his account before, because he thought mat they would have had a settlement soon. He had spoken to Mr Corry about his expenses account, saying that he thought the chaff, etc., he got from the store would be set against that. He did not know if Mr Corry had seen Mr O'Connor previous to his sale of grain, but witness made the deal. Mr Corry had said that Mr O'Connor was in the office, and told him to go and see what sort of deal he could make with him. Witness bought Daly's grain in Mr Corry's ■office. He was specially sent out to Morrin's to secure one line, and he did secure it, and while there he secured two other lines. He made the sale and fixed the price and fastened it down in his own sale book. These sales took over three weeks. Railage \ had nothing to do with him, or the I arrangement about the Id per bushel. He had heard it said that Mr Corry got 5s 9d for some of the lines. Continuing his evidence, defendant was further cross-examined by Mr A. j Rogers. He was out of town on Mr j Corry's business during the month of j October, November^ and 'December,

1906. He did not put his claim to Mr Corry for expenses because he did not have need or the money. He should have paid for his chaff and drawn his expenses every month, but he did not expect to have a row with Mr Corry, and thought that they would have an amicable settlement. Mr Corry had told him to go to the Grove on his business.- He did not give Mr Corry any memo of his expenses. He may have drawn a pound for expenses now and then when he had to run off somewhere hurriedly. He did not know what the £3 item was. In regard to the Exhibition; he got £10 for his services in the Marlborough Court, but it cost him £17. He only got £10 from Mr Corry and he himself paid the rest. He had not repeatedly got money for expenses out of petty cash. The item in the cash book £2 Is, for Seddon, he did not remember. The items read out of the cash book as having been received by him did not represent all that he had incurred. When he only drew 10s from petty cash when he needed £1 for expenses, it was that many a time petty cash was dry. Mr Corry knew perfectly well that he went short of expenses very often and that the chaff he took from the store was to recoup him. He always received bis wages regularly. It was a good place for paying wages. Mr Corry used to growl at the petty cash being paid out for expenses. Witness knew that the goods he got from the store' were put down against him. he also knew that Mr Corry had no details from him for the £95 expenses account. Witness was not discharged by Mr Corry. He got on the spree and simply did not roll up to work. By Mr Churchward: He would swear that he made the contracts and completed them by' the sale notes. The Id per bushel was his gross remuneration, and he had to pay all disbursements out of this, with the exception that Mr Corry paid railage when .required^ He conscientiously thought that his chaff account was to square his expenses account. Mr Corry had told him so. If Mr Corry had not sued him, he would not have sued Mr Corry; but he would have summoned him on the commission account anyway. He was willing to put the £85 account to the £45 and call it square ; but he wanted his commission. In other firms he had worked for he was paid at the rate of £10 and out-of-pocket expenses. Arthur Wiffen deposed that in his opinion the outside expenses of an outside buyer ran up, in the case of his own men, sometimes from 5s to £3. It would not be reasonable to only pay_ a man, £10 per month and expect him to pay his own expenses. Fifteen shillings per week would not be an unreasonable demand. He would never begrudge a man his expenses if he was out on his business. He never paid expenses out of petty cash, and did not know any other firm that did. Witness had employed Mr Hendra, and he satisfied him. He had no occasion to complain of him. Of course, he never played poker with him. (Laughter). From his own knowledge of defendant, he had no reason to complain of his veracity. He was a perfectly qualified man in his business. There was no better in Blenheim.

By Mr Rogers: The question of the Id per bushel was only a matter of arrangement. He could not see how any business man wom^ make such an idiotic arrangement. It was a remuneration out of all reason.

I Edward Healy, auctioneer, said that he was employed as an outside buyer. It was not usual for an employee to receive a salary which -would include out-of-pocket expenses. He put his statement of expenses in every month, and they were paid, and ran from £4 to £5 per month on an average. It could not possibly be done for less. By Mr Rogers: The nature of his outside business meant stock buying |as well as grain, and the stock took him a little further afield. He considered that a month was long enough to be without out-of-pocket expenses. His firm would not allow an expenses account to run over the month. He would like an arrangement at Id per bushel. Excepting a few cases, the outside price for barley was this year 5s 6d per bushel. The average price would be about 5s 4^d. Roy McArtney gave evidence, and said he was employed by Mr Corry. Mr Hendra had not been paid by him 1 for out-of-pocket expenses* He paid the wages, but he never received any money to pay Mr Hendra his travel--1 ling expenses. He had paid Mr Hendra nothing since the 16th January this year.' By Mr Rogers: It was quite possible for Mr Hendra to have obtained from Mr Corry his wages. If Mr Hendra had asked for expenses from his petty cash he would have paid it, provided that there was sufficient money to pay him. He would then, charge the amounts up to Mr Hendra. If the petty" cash got down low, Mr Corry being away from town, there might have been only a few shillings left, and witness would obtain a cheque to renew it when he came back.

This concluded the case for the defendant on the counter-claim, and tne case was adjourned till Tuesday.