AN AGENCY CASE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 12754, 25 September 1919, Page 7

AN AGENCY CASE.

QUESTION OF INSURANCE. A case involving the liability of agents was heard before Mr P- L. Soilings, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court to-day, when the Massey Harris Company, Ltd. (Mr Sim), proceeded against Mackenzie John M’Bryde (Mr H. K. M’Dougall), a saddler, of IVaiau, to recover the sum of £l4 19s 6d for, goods supplied by the plaintiffs to the defendant. The claim was originally for £3l ISs 6d, but this amount was subsequently reduced to £l4 19s 6d, plaintiff admitting that £7 12s 4d had been credited to defendant since the court proceedings were instituted, aud that they were only entitled under the agreement to recover two-thirds of the >otail value of the goods, which had been destroyed by a fire. Mr Sim stated that the defendant acted ns agent for the plaintiff company at Waiau. Under the agreement entered into between the parties, dofondant made himself liable for payment for any of the plaintiffs’ goods which he sold. The agreement also provided that he should insure the plaintiffs’ goods up to two-thirds of their retail value. In March of this year defendant’s premises' were damaged by fire and it was fonnd that defendant had insured his own stock but not the plaintiffs’. Plaintiffs’ claim was partly for goods supplied and partly for neg-ligence-failure to insure.

Evidence for the plaintiffs was given by Thomas Edward Brown, a clerk in plaintiffs’ employ- Ho stated to 3Lr JVl’Dougall that defendant had been debited with the cost of an article supplied to a farmer at Waian from tne company’s headquarters, and returned to. the defendant as the plaintiffs’ agent. Defendant got no commission on ; sales transacted in Waiau by the pUintiffs’ travelling agents. Mr M’Dougall contended that on legal grounds nob a penny was recoverable by the plaintiffs. In the absence of proof of negligence, or special contract, an agent was not responsible for any loss incurred through an accidental fire. Counsel contended that defendant was not legally bound to insure the plaintiffs’ goods after he had been debited by the plaintiffs for their value. In equity the defendant was losing fai mo;e than the plaintiffs, who could reduce the amount or their claim bv £8 18s if they caied to sue the debtors for this amount.. Defendant could not sue to recover this amount The defendant, in evidence, said that although he signed the agreement with the plaintiffs, he did not know that he was bound to insure their goods. Jf he were compelled to pay the amount of the plaintiffs’ claim he would - be losing between £36 and £-10 over his agency, while the plaintiffs would lose nothing. The Magistrate said he must hold that the agreement was binding on both parties to it. Judgment would be entered for £l2 Is 10d—the amount claimed, loss £2 17s Bd, the value of goods sold by the plaintiffs and returned to defendant, as their agent.