WORK FOR TWO FIRMS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17327, 26 November 1919, Page 7

WORK FOR TWO FIRMS.

DISPUTE OVER COMMISSION.

JUDGMENT FOE PLAINTIFF.

Judgment was given by Mr. J. W. Poynton, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday, in the case in which Kahn Brothers (Mr. Walton), ' warehousemen, sued Charles Coward (Mr. Hosking), traveller, and James Thomas Casley (Mr. Conlan), indent agent, for £80, commission allegedly earned by Coward from Casley. while really employed by the plaintiff.

In the statement of claim the plaintiff firm set out that from April 25 to July 12, 1919, Coward was in their employment as a traveller, at a weekly remuneration. During that time Coward received £80 from Casley, as commission on goods which he sold for him. That sum neither Do-ward nor Cas.ey had paid to the plaintiff firm, and Kaiin Brothers claimed, on the ground that Coward had earned it while working in their employ. Mr. Hosking,' in defence, contended that the money was earned by Coward in his own time, and he was therefore entitled to it. *

The magistrate, in giving judgment, 'said he was convinced that owing to shipping and railway time-tables, it would be impossible for a traveller to work only between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.. as claimed by the defence, and he must find that the alleged agreement as to working hours was not proved. The plaintiff, he said, was not aware that Coward was working for an opposition firm, and ha in no way ratified, the arrangement. After quoting legal authority, Mr. Poynton said : An agent must notlet his dHty conflict with his interest, and that is what the agent did here. He was a longer time than usual on the last round, and it is suggested by the plaintic that this was due to his efforts to sell his opponent's goods. That is probably correct. He earned the commission in connection with, and in the course of, his principal's agency. The persons to whom he sold the goods were in nearly all cases his principal's customers, to whom he would not be known but for the agency. At his employer's expense he was travelling from place to place among such persons. He must have in many instances sold goods to them .on commission for prices under those of his employer's. In fact, there was great inducement for him to sell more of the opposition firm's material than of his principal's, and he did so. Surely this is a case where the agent must account to his principal for such irregular profits, because he obtained them in the course'of his agency, and in direct conflict with-his principal's interest, and even to the latter's detriment." Judgment was given against Coward, the defendant, for £73 16s lOd. Decision in the claim against Casley was reserved for seven days.