OVERSEAS BUYING.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16904, 1 December 1922, Page 8

OVERSEAS BUYING.

MANAGER’S LIABILITY. Further evidence was heard before Mi H. Y. Widdowson. S.M., in the Magistrate's Court to-day in the case between the Canterbury Orchardists’ Co.-ap. Ltd., and James Longton. Defendant was manager and a director of the plaintiff company during 1920 and up till May. 1922. It A\a9 alleged that he committed a breach of bis duty and in violation of a resolution ot the directors had purchased in the name of the company consignments of fruit from Australia and committed the company to pay for them. The transactions resulted in a loss of £509 6s lid. On the directors becoming aware of the matter they decided that the loss should be defrayed by the defendant lest, certain rebates of commission. The defendant admitted his liability, in the statement of claim, and agreed to refund tire amount of loss entailed by his breach of duty, and with his consent he was debited with the amount of the loss. 1m July, 1921, the defendant paid £2OO in reduction of his debt. A general meeting of the company on July 30, 1921, decided to authorise a further rebate to the defendant. At present- t-h© defendant was indebted to the plaintiff to an amount o-f £145 10» 9d. The claim was for this amount with interest at 8 per cent from July 30, 1921, or in the alternative £2OO damages for loss sustained through the action of defendant. The plaintiff company was I'epreeented by Mr S. F. Wilding, and defendant by Mr A. F. Wright. In his evidence defendant said that h > had not heard of the policy of the company that he wai alleged to have broken until the directors brought it up They maintained all through. however, the policy of not buying for the cool store. Defendant maintained that the company had not authority to take the £2OO off the account, and it had never been stated at, the general meeting on July 30, 1921, that he had paid off that amount Op one of the secretary's balance-sheets the £2OO had been, shown as being on deposit Witness told the secretary that it was not a deposit. Witness had objected to paying the account all along as he was not liable. He contradicted Mr Stead's evidence that up till May last he had never disputed the account. {Proceeding.)