AGENTS AT LAW.

Waikato Times, Volume 100, Issue 16750, 17 March 1926, Page 8

AGENTS AT LAW.

DISPUTE ABOUT COMMISSION. PLAINTIFF'S CASE SUCCEEDS. An arrangement between two insurance agents as to Hie proportion in which premiums on commissions collected when canvassing together sbculil be divided between them formed the basis of a dispute heard by Mr Wyvern Wilson. S.M., at Die Hamilton Magistrate's Court yesterday. Tho plaintiff was Carol Avram Roth, insurance agent, of Hamilton. and he sought to recover from another insurance agent, also of Hamilton, and named John F. Fox, £-'il 13s allegedly duo as share of commission. Prior to the hearing defendant had paid into Court Ihe sum of £32 Is in satisfaction of the claim, which the plaintiff declined to accept. Mr D. J. R. Seymour conducted the case for plaintiff and Mr T. A. Lucas appeared on behalf of defendant. Outlining plaintiff's case. Mr Seymour explained that plaintiff and defendant had been acquainted in the Canterbury district, where they had worked for tho Colonial Mutual Life. Assurance Company. Defendant was later on agent for the company in Hamilton, and invited the plaintiff, about, January, 192rj, who was not then in the company's employ, to join him canvassing in Hamilton. It, was about, January 27, 102"), that plaintiff agreed wild defendant lo work with the latter in the Waikato district as a canvasser for Ihe Colonial Life Assurance Co. The arrangement was that commission on premiums on policies taken out, in the company through Die instrumentality of plaintiff and defendant were to lie shared in equai shares. Running costs of a motor-car used by the- parties were also lo be paid in equal proportions. The cornmission in respect of first-year premiums payable by the company to defendant was alleged by plaintiff to be 80 per cent, of the premium. The defendant contended that lie had only received 05 per cent, from the company, and was due lo pay the plaintiff at a rate of 32J per cent, instead of 40 per cent.

Plaintiff, Carol Avram Roth, said ho came to Hamilton at the invitation of defendant. On plaintiff's arrival defendant was surprised to learn that when witness had previously worked for the company he had a contract for commissions far superior to that of defendant, who was allowed 05 per cent, commission on first-year premiums, whereas the plaintiff bad been getting a commission of 80 per cent. On hearing this defendant went to Wellington to interview the company's head office, but on his .return would not inform witness what arrangement had been made, but had assured plaintiff "that it was all right," implying that the basis was to be 80 per cent. Defendant had also written to plaintiff suggesting that if the plaintiff obtained any proposal lie (Fox) could copy the signature on lo anolhcr proposal. To Mr Lucas, plaintiff said he loft the copy in Canterbury because of a certain clause in the company's proposal whereby the company would not hold itself responsible for statements made by its agcnls when canvassing.

For the defence Mr Lucas said it was clear that 05 per cent, was the basis on which plaintiff and defendant had, written up the insurance.

John Frank Fox said he engaged plaintiff on a 50 per cent, basis of the commissions received. ' In most cases, however, plaintiff had been paid on a basis of GD per cent. 'When plaintiff joined defendant reference was made to a better contract. Witness visited the head office in Wellington in regard to the establishing of a local office and private matters. No new arrangement. was made regarding commissions to lie paid on premiums. .Mr Seymour: In lids lellcr you wrote to Roth you suggest that after a proposal is signed the .signature should be copied on to another proposal. Defendant: Yes. Mr Seymour: Why did you do it? Defendant: Because 1 was a fool. Counsel: When did you lind that out? —when I took the plaintiff in. Counsel: That's exactly whs; you did, you took him in. Defendant: I realise I should not have written that in a letter. Mr Seymour: Oh! you arc in the habit of getting proposals signed and then forging the signature on to another proposal? When you wrote to Roth you apparently thought he would do the same. When at a later stage Mr Lucas referred to the clause on the proposal whereby the company was not responsible for statements made by its agents, His Worship remarked there was apparently a necessity for it. "I find i am quite unable to believe one word of what the defendant has told me," said His Worship." "Defendant conducted his business in a most unscrupulous manner, not serving his subordinates or the company he works for right, lie is unreliable and not trustworthy." The Magistrate considered that defendant's evidence was unreliable and added that he was satistled that the arrangement entered into as represented to plaintiff was that he was to lie paid on a basis of SO per cent. Defendant engaged Hotli on a half-share of 80 per cent., which he claimed and was rightly entitled to. judgment would be. given for the amount claimed, including that paid into Court.