THE SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 15175, 14 December 1912, Page 5

THE SUPREME COURT.

TIMBER BROKERS' CLAIM.

QUESTION OP COMMISSION.

A claim for commission was heard by Mr. Justice Edwards at the Supreme

Court yesterday, when W. J. Curry and Company, timber exporters of Auckland, proceeded against Easson, Ltd., timber merchants of Wellington, for the sum of $362 16s 4d. Mr. F. Earl, K. C., with him Mr. Endean, appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Hislop for the defendant

company. In stating; his case, Mr. Earl said that the plaintiffs were not merely timber exporters, but general brokers and eommis-1 sion agents, and had from time to time ! been employed by the defendant company to procure _ purchasers for the latter's timber, receiving commission on. all such sales.. On June 17, 1911, plaintiffs brought about a contract for 2,000,000 feet, of timber between the defendants, and the Victorian Co-operative Butter Factory, for which it was agreed that they should receive £262 10s. Defendants sent two shipments of this order from Greymouth, but the Victorian Company complained of the quality and condition of the timber, and refused to go on with the contract if an allowance were not made for the alleged inferior goods sent. This defendants refused to do, and the contract was cancelled. Defendants paid over £12 16s to plaintiffs, on account of the commission, but refused to pay the balance, £249 13s 6d.

On July 14, 1911, plaintiffs" procured Andrew Cook, Ltd., of Newcastle, as a client for Easson, Ltd., who, in consequence received an order for 1,000,000 feet of timbef, agreeing to pay Curry and Company £60 12s 6d commission. They paid £14 9s 6d, But again the contract was cancelled, and defendants refused to, pay the balance of' £46 2a lOd. Another contract was brought about by plaintiffs on April 20 last for defendants, this time for 54,000 feet of boxing: timber for a New South Wales Hutter-box firm, tho commission agreed upon in this instance being £141 15s. This contract also was cancelled later. Defendants paid £66 5s off the commission, leaving a Balance of £75 10s. This, it was alleged, left a total balance of £371 6s 4d owing, of which £8 10s had been paid into CouTt, and plaintiffs were now claiming for the remaining £362 16s 4d. Mr. Earl contended that in each case the cancellation of the contract had been due solely to the defendant firm, and had nothing to do with Curry and Company, who were therefore entitled _ to their full commission. Mr. Earl explained that one of the chief statements of the dofenco would bo to the effect that there was an agreement between the parties, that the commission was dependent on the delivery of the goods and payment by the purchaser, but his client would deny this. William John Curry, a member of the plaintiff firm, gave evidence on lines simi- j lar to his counsel's opening, and denied the existence of any agreement as to commission not being paid until goods were delivered and paid for. With regard to the contract . with the Victorian Co-opera-tive Butter Company, he had heard only that day that another contract for 1,000.000 feet of timber had been entered into in June last, between that, company and defendants. The plaintiffs had not been advised of this contract. - To Mr. Hislop, witness stated that his commission was due as soon as a contract was completed. With regard to the contract with the Victorian Butter C°mpanv, the deduction the company claimed for "the alleged inferior timber was' £60Ho was not aware that it had afterwards been decided % the parties that £30 was a fair allowance. At this stage the proceedings were adjourned until Monday morning.