SUPREME COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 6315, 13 August 1888, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

» Civil Sittings. IHIS DAY. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Ward, and a Special Jury o£ four). WILSON V. SUMMEBTON. Mr Bowman for plaintiff; Mr Bruges for defendant. This was an action brought by John Leaf Wilson, auctioneer, of Christchurch, trading , under the style of Wilson and Son, against Thomas Summcrton, of Templeton, miller. The plaintiff claimed the sum of .£95 Ib 9d, being the price cf certain wheat and sacks sold by him to defendant — to be paid for on delivery — less .£2O admitted to have been paid to plaintiff, who prayed judgment for the amount claimed with interest thereon at 8 per cent. The defendant in his statement of defence stated that he had paid for the goods mentioned in the statement of claim, with the exception of 53 2d. There was alao a counter claim in which the defendant said that the plaintiff (Wilson) agreed with the defendant (Summerton) that ho (the plaintiff) would sell the defendant's flour in consideration of the defendant paying the plaintiff a commission of 5 per cent on the amount sold. A list of par ticulars of tbe flour sold by the plaintiff, showed that the value thereof was .£99 Os Id, which, less £& 15s, amount of commission at 5 per cent, left a balance alleged to be due to defendant of .£94 53 Id. The defendant also affirmed that the plaintiff was & del credere agent of the defendant in the sale of the said flour. That the plaintiff sold, on account of defendant, a cart for the sum of £4, which amount the defendant had included in tbe above-mentioned particulars. That the plaintiff promised to pay cash for the said goods when the same were cold. That the plaintiff had sold and disposed of the said goods, but had not paid the defendant the amount of such sales. The plaintiff, in hia defence to the counter-claim, admitted that he was employed by the defendant as agent to sell, and did sell the goods, at the rates mentioned in the statement of claim, but denied that the rate of commission to be paid therefore was 5 per cent. Plaintiff alleged that the rate of such commission was to be 2£ per csnt, and that a further sum at the rate of 2_, per cent was to be deducted from the price of all flour sold, being an allowance which, by the usage of the trade, is allowed to all purchasers of flour for cash. Denied that he was a del credere agent in the sale of the said flour, or any part thereof, but that he assumed the ordinary liabilities of a factor or agent, and no more. He was willing to account to the defendant for all moneys received for the sale of the said flour, after making all proper deductions. He denied having promised to pay cash for the said goods. The evidence taken in the case was mainly a repetition of that given in a recent action between the same parties in the Resident Magistrate's Court.