MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13235, 21 July 1906, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

JUDGMENT SUMMONSES:

At ho •weekly sitting of the Magistrate's Court, continued yesterday before Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., orders .were made on judgment summonses as follows —Robert Storr v. J. Garnaut, £4 ss, debtor ordered to pay £4 5s within 14 days, in default, seven days' imprisonment; Smith and Caughey, Limited, v. A. Rhodes, £1 lis, debtor; ordered to pay £1 lis within 14 days," in default, 48 hours' imprisonment; J. Lumpkin v. Levi Coupland, £19 17s, debtor ordered to pay £14 18s within 14 days, in default, 14 days' imprisonment; H. Robin sou v. TV H. Casey, £5 Is 6d, debtor ordered to pay £2 13s 6d within 14 days, in default, seven days' imprisonment. ,': ;: '..-'

'CLAIM FOR COMMISSION. Tho hearing of the claim brought by William D. Russell against Frank Harris and Company, monumental masons, to?-£20 lis 9d, balance of commission, was proceeded with.' Mr. J. R. Reed appeared for plaintiff and Mr. A. J. iSdmunds for the defendants; who disputed the claim. Further evidence for the defendants was given to the effect that they never allowed: more than ten per cent, commission on any orders, and only five per cent, upon orders introduced . by plaintiff, in conjunction with the sexton- of Waiikaraka Cemetery. The commission was to include all the plaintiff's expenses. The plaintiff, recalled, said it was agreed that he should not be out. of pocket for travelling expenses.' He had claimed and received travelling expenses, but he had never kept an account of the amounts.

Mr. Kettle said the agreement was entered into in an unbusinesslike way. There. was no agreement in writing, no definite arrangement, and this was followed by the'!, unbusinesslike way .in which the defendants' books had been kept. There was no monthly or quarterly statement of accounts, ana the matter was allowed to drift for 13 months or .so, which was not a case of oversight. From a confused mass of conflicting evidence the Court had to come to a decision. He found that the plaintiff was' entitled to ten per cent, on all orders, whether they were cut prices or not, which were the resuit of the plaintiff's solicitation, with .the exception of the customers whose orders were executed on the Waikaraktt Cemetery. On the latter -orders plaintiff was entitled to five.per; cent., whore the orders were the joint result of the sexton and himself. The plaintiff had sworn lie was entitled to all travelling expense*,'■ and the defendants declared .there was no such agreement. The probabilities of the evidence lay with the plaintiff. , The defendants' books showed the travelling' expenses were treated differently to the commission. The payments made to. plaintiff would be treated as in respect to travelling expenses, and which plaintiff had sworn he had spent. In reply to 'Mr.'; Reed, , His Worship said plaintiff would also be allowed the benefit of followon orders until the relationship ceased- : The parties then agreed to: examine the various items on which commission J was i claimed and report to the Court. Mr. Kettle j intimating that he would give his final 'tie- j cision later, ' i