THE INSURANCE CASE

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Volume 58, Issue 244, 15 November 1929, Page 8

THE INSURANCE CASE

CONTINUED IN MAGISTRATE8 COURT. PLAINTIFF CROSS-EXAMINED. ^PAYMENTS NE7ER UP TO TIME." Tlie case was continued in the Napier Magistrate' s Court yesterday in whieh Henry "Walter Hall, of Dannevirke, life assurance agent (Mr T. H. G, Lloyd) proceeded agaiiiot Tasman J. C. Gurr, of Napier, and tiie JN'ational Mutual Assurance Co., Ltd. (Mr C. C. Sorrell) claiming the return €t. a car allegedly wrougfully seized "by tlie first defcnclant, tlie paymcnt of commMsion allegedly due from the second defendant and damages as tbe court tbougbt fit. Mr A. M. Movlem, S.M., presided. Plaintiff then gav© lengthy evidence, reviewing tlie tenns of bis engagement, and leading up to the business of the car. .Plaintiff said tliat Gurr represented tliat the car was liis and plaintiff was to pay it off at so liiuch a month. Plaintiff paid tlie registration fees, tbe car being in Gurr's name. Plaintiff understood tliat if lie left the serrice of tlie coinpany lie was to take tlie car and go 011 payiiig instalments till tlie car was liis. Thea-e liad been frietion between witness and Gurr as to tlie state of witness' accounts witb tbe offiee, and witness complained tliat comnnssions due to him were not cyedited. In tlie proposal form tliere was a space for writing in who introduced tlie business, but Gurr told witness not to fill in that space, as it was for liead ofSce use. Gurr told witness to write 1ns name in pencil, so that it could be wiped out if necessary. r 1 Gurr liad power to nogotiate for business hiraself, in whieli case lie would take all tbe commission, unless tbe work was done in conjunction witb an agent, in whieli case tbe commission would be dividcd bv arrangement. WHY HE RESIGNED. "t raay say tliat it was always fiftjfiftv, and fifty-fifty of our commission, not fifty-fifty "of our commission and his ovcr-ridmg commission,' witness lemarked. , , , Witness said that Tesigned because of tbe difficulty lie had mith Gurr in getting money, whetlier or not his aecount was in credit. 0 n Gurr promising to keep bim suppbed in future, witness agreed to stav on, but a promise by Gurr to pay hira £~o imniediatelv was not kept. After going to Napier to see Gurr witness was put off, Gurr saymg that he was too busy to see him. "He was always busy when he had to pav out money," witness remarked. Gurr said be dicl not bave mucb aeady money but promised to forward. eheques. Tbese_ f ailed to come to band, and witness resigned. Gurr claimed that witness5 account was tbe n £94 in debit, but ^ness said tliat tbe correct figure was £40. Plaintiff said tliat be oftered to arrange for tbe paying off of wbat he owed 011 tbe car, but Gurr refused and seized tlie car at Waipawa. Mr Lloyd : Was tliere any scene about tlie" seiznre. Plaintiff: Oh, yes. I protested and Gurr was beliaving like a inadman, waving bis stick and shouting out, and tiircatening to hit me. X0TH1XG TO DO WITH IT. Witness said that tbe liead manager oi' tlie Mutual Life Association refused to lielp liiin get the car back, sayiug tbe company liad notbing to do with it. Tlie Magistrate: 1 can't imderstaud tliat. Isn't it a fact that it is set up by defondants that tlie car was then ■under liire-purcbase irom the company to Gurr? Mr Lloyd: Yes, sir, tliat is wliat tlie clefenco says. Tbe Magistrate: Well, in tbis letter tlie company says it will bave notbing tc do with it. Mr Lloyd: I eannot understand it eitlier, sir. A little later another letter was road from tbe company in wliich it was said that tbe compaiiy could not pay off Hall's debt 011 tbe car as Guir was still in debt to ftiem. 011 it. The Magistrate: I. eannot understand that either. The company said in a previous letter tliat it bad nothmg to do witb it. Mr Hislop : They meaut tbe dispute between Hall and Gurr, sir. Tlie Magistrate : But in oue letter tbev say tliat if Hall pavs off the amount he can take tbe car but as a nmtter of fact be could not, as Gurr still bad to pay it off to the company. Letters produced written by Gu-r to plaintiff, referrmg to "payments on hire-purcbase of car'5 were read to prove that tbe car was under a hirepurehase sclieme. Letters from plaintiff to Gurr were siso read, tliese including tbe ]ilirase, "hire-purchase 011 car." Mr Lloyd : Did you ever bave a piotest l>y Gurr for using the term "liire-purcbase of car"? — No, neveP NDER CROSS-EXAMINATI ON. I11 tbe afteruoon plaintiff continued his evidence as to tlie comniissious allegedly due to him by tlie defendant | and a lile of bis monthly statemcnts j wbile on tlie road was banded iii as \ evidence. Ile was subjected to eross-oxami j tion by "Mr Hislop in rospcct to jiay- j nieiits of eoinmission by Gurr. Under 1 cross-examiiiatioii witness adniitted j that be was now an undiscliarged bankrupt, but stated tliat when be j iirst went to Gurr lie liad not filed. At ; tlie time lie bad told Gurr tliat be was , insolvent and when be started Gurr ( inade bim a payment ui advance. Mr Hislop : Commission wliicli .vui \ had not earned? — Tt 1? tbe usual pr-ic- ! tice to make advances when you aie i gtarting. All tbe otber cmniianies do ii. j Further cross-examincd witness st-iv- [ eJ tliat Gurr perpetually lei't bim slu.rt ' and was Jate in payments of comnns- ' sion. i Mr Hislop: Ycs, beeause you weie , always in debit. Witness: Yes, oue always would !e m debit if lie debits vou witli Ootohor expenses on vour Septemher commission scbechile" \\ itnoss then produced tbe scliedule referred to and tbe Magistrate stated tliat it was plaui that. he 'liad been (lebited as it was r,ileged 111 tlns case. CASES WRITTEN. Counsel for the detence then pi-.-oetded to cross-exaniine witness .t hngtli on individual cases tliat Jie liad '■'written," quoting from the sehedules At one stage counsel stated tliat t was liis iiitention to prove that U.? plaintiff was in tlie eniploy of Gurr and not of tbe company. Shortlv ait e- - Tvards he asfeed vntn&ss wlietber he t*i I received a certain payment of eomnii - sion from tbe coinpany, tbe Magistrate' remarking tliat tbis pointed '• tbe fact tbat plaintiff was actually u, tbe company' s employ. Havmg completed bis cross-examiiiu tion in respect to tbe sehedules, counsel. in answer to tlie Alagistrate, statr (i tbat be still liad to cross-examme | lr regard to tbe car, but expressed tbe ojunion flint tbe case could be Hnish°d 'to-day. Tbe Magistrate accordingtv *djourned tbe case, until tbis moruiiig.