TIMBER DISPUTE

Waikato Times, Volume 117, Issue 19596, 7 June 1935, Page 6

TIMBER DISPUTE

ROTORUA LITIGATION.

SOLE AGENT SUES COMPANY.

COUNTER-CLAIM FOR £ll9O

Arising out of the termination of his appointment as sole agent for defendant company in Hie Rotorua district George Thomas Lodge, limber merchant, of Rotoura, proceeded against the Wilson Timber Mills, Ltd., ot Auckland, ill the Supreme Court Hamilton, yesterday afternoon, for the taking of accounts and £2OO damages. Defendant company counter-claimed for £1196 for timber supplied. Mr Justice Reed presided. Mr E. Roe appeared for the plaintiff and Mr M. H. Hampson was briefed by defendant company. Outlining plaintiff's case, Mr Roe ■said in February, 1932, Lodge accepted an appointment by defendant company as its sole agent to sell its timber in Rotorua. The company’s mills were at Te Whaiti, near Rotorua. An agreement was arranged between the parties whereby plaintiff received 10 per cent, commission on any orders sent direct to the mill and 15 per cent, commission on any orders pul in himself. Lodge established a yard at Rotorua and started business on behalf of defendants- The arrangement continued until January 16, 1935, when plaintiff received a month’s notice terminating his appointment Lodge asked for a complete list of the moneys due to him by direct orders. He was not satisfied with the return submitted and asked for an .amendment, which was not supplied.

Alleged Inadequate Notlco.

Counsel continued that plaintiff then asked defendant company for the taking of accounts regarding his commission, and claimed £2OO for alleged unreasonable notice terminating the contract. He estimated that he had been earning £4O a month. Defendant company filed a counter-claim for. a shortage in the consignment of timber supplied to plaintiff. ' There were four questions for the court to settle: (1) What were the boundaries of plaintiff’s agency? Plaintiff alleged that they were the Rotorua County boundaries, and defendants alleged that they were the Rotorua Borough boundaries. (2j Whether defendant company was entitled lo give a discount to customers on direct orders and deduct the discount from Lodge's commission of 10 per cent.? (3) Whether plaintiff was entitled to damages lor unreasonable notice? (4) What amount, if any, was due to defendant company for alleged shortage in their consignment timber. Counsel said defendant company claimed that during the whole period of three years a total of 197,680 feet of limber was placed in Lodge’s yard, hut Lodge only accounted for 162,675 feet, leaving a balance of 35,005 feet. Expert evidence concerning timber measurements, etc., was given by William Henry Wackrow, manager of the Rotoiti Timber Company, Rotorua.

Charge of Shortages.

.In evidence plaintiff confirmed his counsel’s outline of his case- There had never been a suggestion from defendants that they were entitled to deduct customers’ discounts from Ills commission, he said. When he look over the agency in 1932 he went to considerable expenditure in establishing a yard and oiliee and in building a rack for timber. At the end of the first year 1. J. Wilson, deceased, the principal of the company, assured him Hiat his word was his bond, and plaintiff could be assured of plenty of notice. Some 18 months later the company presented a tally showing a shortage of timber of £447 in plaintiff’s yard. He informed defendants that the tally was “absolutely ridiculous” and that they could lake all their timber out of the yard. Delendants did not do so or send in an account. Shortly afterwards the company forwarded a further tally showing that llic shortage was then £292. After a conference he suggested that Hie defendants should appoint a man lo watch the timber, but no action was taken. Plaintiff said he often complained to defendant company of. the manner in which their drivers delivered timber to his yard. On several occasions Hie locks on the gates were broken and lie had no means of finding out how much limber was brought in. It was possible Uiat part of the shortage arose through drivers unloading limber in the dark at night. Plaintiff added that it was possible for limber to be wasted by the method of unloading. 'Pile ease was adjourned until this morning.

TO-DAY’S PROCEEDINGS

TERMS UP AGREEMENT. QUESTION OF SHORTAGE. Continuing his evidence to-day, plaintiff said he did not admit responsibility for any.shortage but if he was responsible the maximum amount of shortage would he valued at £llß. He would never have taken up the agency if he knew ils boundaries were to be limited to within a radius of two miles of Rotorua Post Ofilce. Such a limitation was never suggested in a communication received from defendants. Had defendant company deducted from ids commission • the discounts given lo customers they would have been able to undersell him. The customers would have dealt direct with the mill. Mr Roc informed His Honour [hat I lie reason why plaintiff asked for the taking of accounts was because until all the company’s hooks were produced the full amount of commission Hue lo his client could not be ascertained. He agreed, however, that most of Ihe commission was covered by the invoice books, which were available. Plaintiff said no allowance whatever had hern made by defendant* for 2b()dft. of limiter he used for building racks and for deprecialion on all Umber consigned. Gross-examined, plainliff admitted that his yardman did not check liic lin her delivered to Hie yard. No record was mane by (lie yardman or himself when slacking Ihe timber, lie agreed Ilial a few months after taking over Ihe agency he had made no complaint regarding the manner In which

timber was placed in bis yard. He agreed that his building operations were more extensive after taking over the agency and that lie took timber from the yard occasionally for those operations. He denied that he ever agreed in March 1932 that the discounts should be deducted from his commissions. Would Have Objected. Further questioned by Mr Hampson, ■plaintiff said he told Young, the company’s manager, that he could take the timber out of the yard immediately in February, 1934. That was when he received the shortage lists.. Had they accepted his proposition he would have objected if they had taken the timber and terminated the agency. They would have stiil broken the contract and ho would have expected compensation. Despite a loss made on the operations of the yard he made a clear profit of £l4 per month on the agency. He agreed that his profit was on sales from the mill to customers. He had never made a claim against the company for breakages as the result of the negligent handling of defendants’ lorry drivers. His customers had frequently complained of the breakages. Re-examined, plainliff said the company did not fulfil its obligation made m Ihe agreement lo take stock monthly. After four months he asked Young when tallies would be taken. It was about 18 months after he took up the agency before the company took a tally. (Proceeding.)