DISTRICT COURT

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8296, 26 September 1903, Page 4

DISTRICT COURT

| (Before his Honor Judge -Ward.) SAUNDERSON v. JOHN BULLEID & CO. !. The hearing of the case Saunderson v. John Bulleid and Co. was continued after ! we went to press last evening. Mr Lee submitted that drapers in New Zealand have a custom of employing servants as weekly servants. Hk Honor ruled that the existence of the aTeemant precluded any axgumeno with regard to customJoseph. Saunderson, continuing, said stock should be turned over once or once and a half in a year, and he would not agree with the contention tnat stock should be turned over three or four times. Witness had discussed matters in general with Mr Bulleid in 1901, when Mr Bulleid gave the stock as £3,167, and in 1902 the 6tock was £5,622—-an increase of £455. Mr Bulleid nej>-er complained about tne stock going up. Witness told Mr Bulleid. the stock was too large, and said he wou»« bring it down A memorandum (produced) in witness' writing was to the etfect that tue amount was to be reduced by £1122, bringing it down to to £2500. There was an understanding that the stock was to come down. Witness thought tlmt the stock's coming out at £3970 in 1903 was quite reasonable. The increase in trade during tne 18 months amounted to £I6OO. The aillerence in business done during the four months of this vear as compared with the same four months of last year amounted to £3OO. The stock was of a reasonable size for the business- Witness had made an estimate of the stock prior to stock-taking, wuich had been £I2CO under the mark, ine stock on band of handkerchiefs in 1901 at stock-taking was £BO. At that time the stock was too small, and £3OO would bs a reasonable figure. If the average yearlv sales are £95 then a stock of £3OO would be very unreasonable and out of proportion. A stock should be low at stock-taking. With regard to elastic, witness had some trouble with his employer concerning tins line, and elastic had been sent away to agents throughout New Zealand. The invoices for eiastic were £l6 and £l2, and adding the cost, about 30 per cent., of landing, made the total cost abouu £4O Pins given for change were not shown in the books. Witu regard to ribbon velvets, the turnover for each year was iod and the stock was £470. If experts came and said that the ribbon velvet in stock was more than Brown, Swing's wholesale stock witness would say that was absurd. With regard to the interview with Mr Gardiner, witness had not told -Mr Gardiner that he would be unwell for some time, and that Mr Bulkid had bitter get another man. If Mr Gardiner and Mr Bulleid said that witness at the interview at (Mr Build's shop had ( not taken Mr Gardiner to task for his report to Mr Bulleid that witness had re- ; si<med his position, they would not be tell- - in° the truth. The elastics had been sent, £l2 worth to Dunedin and £l6 worth to | Christchurch. There was £460 worth of wools in stock, and witness arranged with Bing, Harris and Co. to take £2OO worth of this in return for haberdashery of that valus. This wool was in scocs before witness arrived. The amounts in his department for which witness was not responsible mi"hfc be from £4OO to £6OO. Witness had remonstrated with the Home buyer for sending too much. Witness couiu not remember bsihs absent from business previous to Easter. "His first knowledge of appendicitis was at Easter, but witness had been ill in the same way before, but did not know of his trouble. Witness was not, however, awav i'rvi.'i H-fore Easrer. Or t . he was certain. The doctor did not mention appendicitis, but said that witness had "the fashionable disease" and advised liim to lie up for a day or two. Nothing was said of an operation. There was a recurrence of the trouble in July, but the doctor did not think it serious, anu. said that if the trouble got any worse an operation would be necessary. Witness never —ought of going into ths" private hospital. Witness had attempted to get situations in the bigger places in New Zealand, bu „ad been unsuccessful. Witness had never been remonstrated with at any place before he came here about over-buying. There had_ been no asrsement between witness and his employer with regard to notice. Lillian Bennett, book-keeper for John Bulleid and Co. stated that she took a letter on July 50th ro Mr Saunderson's house and cave the letter to Mrs Saunderson. Witness was instructed by Mr xiulleid. Witness took a cheque with the letter, the cheque being handed to her i>y Mr Bulleid with instructions to band over the cheque to Mr Saunderson on his signing the document. Witness brought back to Mr Bulleid a letter writ ton by Mrs Saunderson, and had an idea that she"went back to Mr Saunderson with another letter.

Dr Douglas seated that he attended plaintiff first in April and, upon examination, found him run down, and suffering from colic, probably due to latent trouble about the appendix, and advised him, if the symptoms recurred, that perhaps he should undergo an operation. Mr Sannderson was not Slid up, and shortly after ue told witness he was going to submit- himself for life insurance. Witness was not- the examining practitioner for insurance. Witness again attended Saunderson in July, wlien he was suffering from similar symptoms, but more apparently appendicitis, and witness classed the illness as appendicular colic. Again witness spoke of an operation, but did "not advise it. If plaintiff had undergone an operation, under ordinary circumstances the recovery would have taken one month.

To Mr Lee: The second attack of apdicitis lasted two or three -weeks, and witness advised plaintiff to taKe a spell for a few days after that time. It was impossible to state the periods of freedom from such attacks, which were liable to recur at any time. Hie second attack was much worse tlian the former, but one could not say whether the mxt would or wculd not be severe. Such an attack would preclude all possibility of plaintiff's working. The more frequent the atcack the oftensr they were to be expected. Another attack such* as the last plaintiff had had would have necessitated an. operation. This closed plaintiffs case. Mr Lee opened-for the defence. John Bulleid, the defendant, was the first witness calkd by the defence. There was an engagement with Mr Saunderson in the terms of a certain letter. When plaintiff arrived witness gave him particulars of stock and sales. Stock should be turned over about two and a-half t:mes a year. A stock of £2300 to about £2500 would be the amount necessary for a £SOOO turn-over. Witness found complaint with defendant only on account of. over-buying, and more particularly with Messrs Bihg, Harris, and Co. Stock was taken in July last, when Mr Saunderson's stock showed an increase of £450. Witness then told him that hiG stock was tc be reduced to £2500, and this Mr Saunderson agreed to do. Witness had several times spoken to the plaintiff about over-buying. The first year's experience should have been a guide for the second. Before stock-taking goods had to be sent away for sale elsewhere owing to the surplus of these stocks. A case of furs, a case of Japanese goods, elastic, and haberdashery senerally liad to be sent away to London, Christchurch, and Dunedin for sale. Upon witness remonstrating with plaintiff, the latter said, "11 yon don't like my buying I'll leave, but leave it until stock-taking and I'll reduce the amount- to £1200." Witnessed not bought- more than !£2O worth for this department during the year. This was exclusive of certain machines, the present stock of which wonld be about £24. Mr Saunderson alone bought for his own department. The last stock-taking, showed stock to the value of £3970 in plaintiffs department. This was absurd on the face of. it. The ' white elastic bought would last for ten years. ' there beine over 10,000 yarus of it. Part of this was disposed of at a loss, and part still remained in stock. "Hosiery, before. Saunderson's advent, was under £2OO, quite suffi-. cient forthe trade done. During the present month rtock-taking revealed a; selling value of £7537, with about £2OO worth to arrive and a further order for 50' dozen pairs. This left stock of £624 as, againstr £2OO. Handkerchiefs' showed from £BO ta*~£j?oo. The stock of. pins in 1901 amounted "to £6 los- .Sales of" pins for the vear would be-about; £2O, and t"*°re were. li.OOO'pa*** Won hand, with a selling price of £SO. Ribbon velvet was a- risky stock, '.and one that- required caution, in. buying. ''A. £SO stock.would be ample -for requirements, while the stock is now £3OO. These Vxcsssive amounts were the result, of Mr Saunderson's ordering. Besides tUis -there -are. orders for aboutSSO dozen handkerchiefs: %hich.b»ve not yet been fulfilled..;; Witnefw ■_. ?made -no bis mind, to get" rid of .plaintiff," ■when, he had a. chance of.going, through bis stock arid discoTered this wholesale overbuying. The overstocking- carried an pj -nlaintiff will result in the loss of .several hunldrea„pounds. c Sffl^jhad'writtetfMwptS

ing the resignation of pTainwn! on the word of Mr Gardiner. Mr Saunderson.came down to his place of business subsequently and said be had. not given Mr Gardiner his resignation. Witness called (Mr Gardiner and Mr Saunderson had nothing whatever to say. .Mr Saunderson had told an untruth; he did not call -Mr Gardiner, nor was Mr Gardiner dumb when confronted by plaintiff. Plaintiff himself hay told witness of the appendicitis. Plaintiff had certainly been absent on one occasion/before Easter. The absence of such a man was a matter of importance. When plaintiff was absent at Easter there was no. mention of a holiday, and he was absent on account of sickness. He received pay for all tlfe time he was away. Again, plaintiff was laid up in July. Such absences were a source of considerable loss. Witness had h.ard of summonses being served on Mr Saunderson "during business hours, and this would be injurious to the business.

• The hearing was then adjourned till next day.