No corrections yet
A QUESTION OF COMMISSION. AERATED WATER MANUFAC TURERS IN COUIT. In the Supreme Court yesterday, be fore the Acting-Chief Justice and a jury of six, the hearing was begun of an ac tion in which the plaintift was William Letchford and the defendants Donaldson and Collins, Ltd. Mr. R. RS. Haynes, K.C., with him Mr. F. S. Harney, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. S. lBurt, K.C., with ['im Mr. Purkiss, for the defendants. The case for the plaintiff was that an indenture dated February 1, 1896, was made between the plaintiff and F. T. C.rowder, who was at that time carrying on the business of an aerated water and cordial manufacturer in Perth. In thin indenture Crowder agreed, inter alin, for himself, his executors, adminis trators, and assigns, not to carry on besi ness or compete with the plaintiff, his executors, administrators, and assigns, at Fremantle as an aerated water mann facturer. On or about December 18 180G, Crowder disposed of his aerated water manufacturing business to an in corporated company under the name of Crowder and Letchford, Ltd. On Janu. ary 22. 189S, an itidenturo was made be twcc the plaintiff. Crowder and Latch ford, Ltd., and F. T. Crowder, under which the firm of Crowder and Latch ford, Ltd., were given liberty to sell aerated waters at Fremantle. It was agreed under the same indenture that as long as Crowder and Lctchford, Ltd., continued to carry on business at Fro mantle they should pay to the plaintiff a commission.calculated at the rate of 5 per cent. upon all sales of aerated water, cordials, bltters, and liqueurs manufac tured by them, the commission to be paid monthly, and the amount to be es timiated from full particulars of all sales by Crowder and Letchford, Ltd., in 1r"emantle furnished to the plaintiff. The firm of Crowder and Letchford, Ltd., continued to carry on the business at Fremantlo up to December, 1900, when they disposed of. all their assets to Donaldson and Collins, Ltd. Since then Donaldson and Collins, Ltd., had carried on at Frcmnaitle the business purchasrd by them from Letchford and Crowder, Ltd. They had not, however, as assig. nees of Crowder and Letchford, Ltd., paid to the plaintiff the commission of per cent. upon the sales at Fremantle, nor furnished the particulars of sales as agreed upon between the plaintiff and Crowder and Letchferd, Ltd. The plain tiff further declared that the defendant ccmnpany, for a period of 12 months be fare November 3, 1003, became possesed of certain aerated water and other bot. ties the property of the plaintiff. Know in stacked the same in -heir yara, and wrongfully detained the seme afie November 3. 1903. The plamttc cinus: ed an account, payment, and damages. The defence was a general dialn! of the allegations of the plaintiff as set forth in the statement of claim. The defendants did not admit the all..ge4 in. dentures of February 1. i896, or January 22, 189S. They denied that they pur chasad from Crowder 'fad Letchfbrd, Ltd., any business whatever. The basi ness, carried on by the defeirdants at Freiiantle and elsewhere was their own business, and was carried on by them prior to January 22, 1893. They denied that they uwera the assignees of Crowder and Lolchford.'Ltd. if the defendants purcbased the business of Cronwder and Letchford, Ltd. (which was denied) the defendants had no notice of the alleged indenturo of January 22, 1898. The de fendants also denied that they wrongfu! ly detained the plaintiff's battles. In Noivember, 1903, the plaintiff tcdk pro ceedings against the defendant edmpnany in respect of the alleged detention of bot les, whereupon the defendants. paid 'to the plaintifi's solicitors, and the latter accepted, the sum of £5 in settlement, and the defendants then returned to the plaintiff all his bottles in their posses The hearing of the evidence had not concluded when the Court adj urndc till the following day.