Resident Magistrates Court

Southland Times, Issue 9962, 10 September 1888, Page 2

Resident Magistrates Court

_ ■+■ — . — . Fkiday, 7th Sept. (Bofore H. McUullocb, Esq, R.M.) DEFENDED ACTIONS. Wm. Dougall v. Josiah Rogers. — Mr Henderson tor the plaiotifE, and Mr Fmu for the defendant.— Claim, L2B 0s 9i for photographic views supplied. — Defendant admitted the claim, and judgment was given for plaintiff, with costs L 3 12a. Josiah Rogers v. Wm. Dougall. — Mr Finn for plaintiff, and Mr Henderson for defendant, — Claim, L 34 7a 5d commission on views sold, part of which was admitted. — Mr Finn stated the plaintiff's case to be that on 9th April last an agreement was eutered into between the parties, tbe pur port of which was to make Rogers agent for the selling of Dougall's " Far South " views in tbe Middle Island. This was supplemented later on by another document extending the agency to the whole colony. The remuneration directly was not stipulated, but tuat would be found out from, the evidence. Certain albums containing views were to be supplied to plaintiff at L 3 10s, and tbe first items in dispute were two oi these albums which Rogers sold for L 5, sending tbe order to Dougall and requesting him to forward the accounts with them. The parties, on receiving the albums, refused to take them. Rogers had been debited for' each of the albums and he repudiated the charge as Dougall had seat his accounts to the purchasers.— Mr Henderson said the accounts had been sent with the albums merely to facilitate the plaintiff's business. —The plaintiff, utter giving evidence as to the agreement, detailed the transactions with regard to the two albums in question, which he had sold for L 5 each, lie now claimed that amount as defendant bad got Judgment against him in the preceding case for L 7 as the wholesale price of them, and as he could recaver their full value from the purchasers now. Witness chimed L 26 13^ 4d as commission on 1000 large views and 200 stereo views whioh he received an order for in Wellington, Defendant agreed to snpply him with the views at fixed prices. The terms agreed upon were L2O cash and the balance in three and six months bills bearing interest; 500 of the views to be delivered at once. Following a client's instructions witness telegraphed to Dougall to send 500 views to Ly ttelton in time to catch the Tongariro; writing to him the same night about th" matter. Witness met his chent a few dayß afterwards, and finding that the views bad not been sent he again wired to Dougali that the views were for -one Joplin. (Mr Hendeiaon read the telegram received by defendant, which was to the effect that the views were for Dublin.)— Witness continuing, stated that the name "Joplin" must have bean misconstrued into '' Dublin " in the transmission of the telegram. Through the interference of defendant the order was. not completed, and he wrote to defendant stating that be would hold him re-

eponsib c for th» profit i>«i>w.-ri d b»vhad on th«* trwnmiC't.iop. , P*i*; n x f .'f-ffi -ulty arose o' r'the p yrn" ti'i. -i-' Ll2 10 i-nm-mirt-icio an 8 '•''■ e>ff : 't " ; «■■ ■ -n W t huud through urn agency. Woen be wa> in Wellington he had the Melbourne agency tor tbe views on offer from Dougall and finding that this gentleman was going over there he introduced him to defendant ; by telegram as a suitable agent. It «v on the; 'sales resulting from this that witness claimed- Ll2 10i commission.— Crows-examined : Witness was to collect I tho money for ail bis %aleg but had not • done iowi'h regard to th^'twe aibatus in qu^aiioa. H hai male several loose* during the trip whiob he had not charged. They were not similar cases to those in dispute. Witness did not offer the Mcl bourne or the English and continental agency to either Joplin or Whitehead as an inducement to take the views from him. .He had no writing from any parties who gave him orders nor did he think it usual to have an agreement in writing for every sale.— Wm. Doug ill stated that he foward-d the two albums in question with the accounts to the purchasers to Rogers' order ; and he did not know anyone but Rogers in the transaction. (His Worship said the accounts might have been sent in Bog era' name if he was expected. to collect them). Witness, speaking of Joplio's order, stated that Rogers had not even mentioned w!-o had bought the views when he sent the order; and that he afterwards wrote cancelling that oTder without mentioning any name. Witu* as received a telegram from Joplin asking if he was right in negotiating with Rogers for the sole English and Continental agency, t* which be replied " Certainly not, Rogers agent for New Zealand only." Witness had had dealings ■subsequently with Joplin, with wbich Rogers had nothing whatever to do. The transactions with Whitehead, whom plaintiff wrote to witness about, did not involve a larger sum than L12 — lesß than the commission now charged and that was for a direct order and given on condition that he should have the Australian agency for the views. Witness was pat to considerable expense getting Joplin's order ready, and plaintiff wrote afterwards cancelling It. — This finished the case for the plaintiff, and the further hearing waa adjourned for a week.