TIMBER LITIGATION *

Waikato Times, Volume 117, Issue 19598, 10 June 1935, Page 8

TIMBER LITIGATION *

SOLE AGENT’S CLAIM.

EVIDENCE FOR DEFENDANTS*

NO ALLEGATION OF FRAUD.

The adjourned hearing of evidenc# for the defence in the case at the Supreme Court, Hamilton, in which George Thomas Lodge, timber merchant, of Rotorua, proceeded against the Wilson Timber Mills, Ltd., sawmillers, of Rotorua, for the taking of accounts and £2OO damages was continued before Mr Justice Reed this morning. Defendant company counterclaimed for £1196 from plaintiff for timber supplied. Mr E. Roe appeared for plaintiff and Mr M. 11. Hampson (represented defendant company. Herbert Newton, accountant, of Auckland, and secretary for the defendant company since Its inception, said in February, 1932, the late Mr I. J. Wilson, managing director of the company, was in precarious health and witness was responsible to a large , extent for control of the business. The ' company’s output, mostly of white pine, was bought by the New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company. Asked by His Honour why the agreement with Lodge was not put in writing, witness replied that Mr Wilson was handling the negotiations at that timeWitness said he discussed with Wilson the lack of returns from Lodge and Wilson replied that he preferred to handle the matter himself. From the beginning of 1934, after the death of Mr Wilson, witness was in control of the company’s affairs. He instructed Young, the Rotorua manager, to prepare a statement of Lodge’s consignments and a shortage valued at £292 was discovered.

To His Honour, Mr Hampson said there was no suggestion that the ■shortage was due to fraud on Lodge’s part. Continuing, witness agreed that Lodge had told him the consignment yard was not paying and last November It was suggested that Lodge abandon the yard and continue taking orders for the company. Lodge wrote expressing the hope that the oompany would adhere to the original agreement. Witness interviewed Lodge in January, stating that the oompany was anxious to retain his custom but the consignment yard must go. : Had Lodge’s territory extended over the county instead of, the borough', the benefit he would have received would have been very small. (Of £139 claimed by plaintiff as commission due witness considered that he was not entitled to more than £45. Outside His Territory, Witness dealt with various items In Which firms outside Lodge’s territory had purenased timber on which Lodge was not entitled to commissionUp to the time of the conference Lodge had made no suggestion that he was ontitled to that commission. There should he no necessity for depredation on turn-over |in 'Lodge’s consignment yard.

In his opinion Lodge had used the timber which was not accounted for on various building jobs. In February, 1932, Lodge purchased large quantities of timber from defendant company for building purposes. Witness considered Lodge had confused the consignment stock in the yard with his own stock. Had Lodge made any complaints in the first few months of his agency that timber consigned had not arrived witness could have checked up from the lorry-drivers. He had no idea that Lodge was keeping no records. At no time had he received a written complaint about the lorry drivers' alleged negligence in breaking down the gates. No demands for refunds respecting damaged timber op objections had come from Lodge. Witness considered the company's method of loading was economical and efficient. He had prepared an exhaustive statement dealing with every stick of timber which had been consigned to Lodge and which Lodge had access to.

Cross-examined, witness said he had never discussed with Lodge the meaning of the term ‘‘Rotorua district." He considered the district would bo limited to the town so far as timber selling was concerned. He did not consider there was any timber supplied to Lodge not accounted for in the invoices.

Witnes-s gave a detailed description of the system adopted by the company for recording orders, which he denied was a cumbersome system. Replying to Air Roe after the luncheon adjournment witness admitted that after Lodge’s appointment the company’s business increased. He considered one month’s notice was reasonable for terminating Lodge’s services. He agreed that three months before notice was given he had attempted to get another consignment yard but he denied that he then intended to cancel Lodge’s agency. Asked why lie did not immediately advise Lodge when he detected a shortage, witness replied that lie left it to Air f Wilson. (Proceeding.)