S.M. COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 9361, 9 November 1910, Page 6

S.M. COURT.

A QUESTION OF AGENCX

The S.M. Court was occupied yesterday afternoon in hearing the case of Carl Kuhtze (Mr Cooper) v. C. Dahl and Co., Ltd. (Mr Fitzherbert), claim £101 7s Bd, for work done in connection with the installation of several milking plants, labour and material for same. Plaintiff in his evidence said that he worked under agreement with the defendant company for which Mr C Dahl, senr.j was managing director. Ordinarily it took about three days, or six milkings, to instruct a farmer in the working of the plant, though some took more to learn the details. It took about two weeks to completely instal an average sized plant; two men were employed, and they usually did the milking during the first couple of days, the dairyman looking on and picking up the points. Under such circumstances it was almost impossible to keep a definite time-book, hence it was set out in the agreement between them that a fair and reasonable charge would be allowed plaintiff for the installation of each plant. [Evidence was given by witness as to the purchase of necessary material for the plants, and which the defendant company refused to recognise, also labour in connection with necessary repairs, which they also disputed. Counsel for the company said that the reason they disputed several of the items was because Mr Dahl had been billed for them. Mr Cooper said he didn't mind who paid for them; if the company would take over the liability they would receive credit in plaintiff's claim. It j was only a question of payment for them. Mr Fitzherbert said his clients desired to know how the whole account from plaintiff was made up. Plaintiff, continuing his evidence, gave details of work done in connection with different enquiries for plants and also freights paid on goods sent to him as Dahl's agent, and which he had paid for. No objection had been made to any of the items till he received a note from the company denying any responsibility for liability in connection with any of the plants. He denied that he had at any time agreed to a settlement of accounts by the payment by them of £36. He had had an interview with Messrs Dahl and Clarke, secretary, but nothing definite was arrived at, an argument cropping up with regard to the freight paid by witness. Cross-examined by Mr Fitzherbert, witness said he worked under the agreement for about nine months. He denied it had been arranged that he was to get 15 per cent, commission and erect all plants for £8 each, paying the cost of fittings himself. Witness admitted that his circumstances had prompted him to offer Mr Dahl a clear receipt for £75. The offer was not accepted. Evidence was given at length as to witness' transactions regarding commissions, and his numerous purchases of material, secondhand material, etc. After hearing the plaintiff's case further hearing was adjourned.