CLAIM FOR COMMISSION.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13931, 2 March 1916, Page 4

CLAIM FOR COMMISSION.

„• ■ ■.■ \ > **>-i ...!'.- ■. •: . At the Magistrate's Court tp-daij:, Mr VY. Av^.Bartou, S.M., gave judgment in the case, of- Henry V\. Hall (Mif.lJurnard) v. James .Lhrisp (Mr - T. Alston Colemahj as follows :-=--.. . "I'he plaintili' claims from the deiendant tlie sum of iJ37 Is M, .the amount alleged to be due and owing by the.delenaant to the plaintiff' in respect of commission arranged by plamtitf, at tlie rate of 5 per ceia. upon sales ett'ected. by him \rlnj.e tn ► tlie. employ v of the delendant. The amounts in dispute are : i tern-' 2 Morse, ±55 ' 10s • item : 3, Hayes £4^9a.3d ; item 9, Aljurivi £2, item J.O, Collier JtJJi 18a; 12, -Fojc £2 10s lUd ; 13, Dick^ ' : 1% Smith .&%; l&s. -.-In^rel'erenc^e \t<J : item ,2, the evidence is, very conflicting, but 1 am of. opiniqn -in ail the circumstances, .of tlus transaction that -the plaintiff is not entitled toi'ecoveri. ■■[ Item. *3, .1 am of opinion- that, the ; plaintiff is entitled to . commission as he 'effected the ..sale i and. received u, deposit, which he liauUed to. .the defendant.. Item 9, from the evidence it appears that the plaintiff made a sale of a piano to H. Ahuriri, of. Hick'» Bay, situated beyond Te Araroa, and received a. deposit ill'- £5, which he ( paid' to deiendant. The defendant's.' evidence is tha.t he had instructed the plaintiff not to sen'jpiaiios to an^ person residing be*yond Xe Araron ; liir.vt on account of the difficulty of delivery, and' secondly of •coltectin'g '. p»yniie"»lts ;• and that consequently, he returned the deposit to Ahurii'i. l'UtXntin": denies having received • any i such .instructions from .the .■defend*" ant,- and says that hjs» district was from Mohaka to Opotiki, but" that he ;did not usujotrliyi. do 'any ■ business beyond Te Araroa. 1 am not satisfied that-'-plam--tiff -was. -authorised to; do any. business beyond -Te Araa-oa,' and. as tlie deposit received by, the plaintiff has been. re-, turned -by ( the' defendant to the person' irom. whom it was iteceiVed, I .do not think 'the plaintiff is entitled to commissioHi-} Item 10; I am not satistied fromyihe .evrdenee'that the sale j was madefy <the plaintiff. 'Item .12; I ant of the opiriiph' that; the gale; wa's< effected 1 • through the', instrumentality of plaintiff. In .'respect: of items 13 and .14; it ■'■ a> agreed that £1. 19s he allowed to i the pla-intiff, larid upon 15, £b. Judgment 1 will "fee ■■Bntered^. fov plaintiff as follows,: Amount, adihitted in- letter of 25th,^eb T rUary,. \sl§, *5 », 0s 4d ; • item $ (Hayes) £4 9a-..?d l iJiciftJ2.(^ca)-.*2vlos, items^ 12 13 : ai)d 15 £6 19s,' making a total oi £18 18b. % t QW^th' Aotal -costs M 7s.