A FURTHER STAGE

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Volume 58, Issue 244, 15 November 1929, Page 9

A FURTHER STAGE

REACHED IN INSLRANCE CASE. CASE FOR THE DEFENCE OPENS. A further stage was reached in the Napier ^lagistrate's Court this mor.umg in the case in which Henry Walker Hall, insurance agent, of Dannevirke, (Mr T. H. G. Lloyd) proceeded against Tasman J. C. Gurr, of Napier, (Mr V . Hislop) and the National Mutual Lile Assurance, Co., Ltd. (Mr C. C. So1:rell), claiming the return of a motor car allegedly wrongfully seized by the bisfc defendant or payment of £150 also chattels valued at £23, commission allegedly due amounting to £46, and £95 damages for detention and such further relief as the Court rrpght consider just. Gurr counter-olaimed for the sum or £29 4s, bemg £14 14s for tlie liire of the car from August 1 to Reptember 19 at £9 a montli and £14 10s in conuection with the commission. Wlien the case was resumed this morning; Mr Hislop continued his cross-examiiiation. . . Questioned in regard to two policies w-ritten by him for a man named Beattie, witness stated that these were to take the place of a policy written by Mr Clift'ord Thompson, in Dannevirke, in 1927. He stated that Mr Gurr told him in this case that he had had & letter from the liead office of tlie companv, stating that commission in this case could onlv he paid to Mr Thompson. Gurr stated that he had the letter but witness did not think that he could produce it. "It is rather peculiar that I have the letter liere, hut it bnppens to be confidential," reinarked I^Ir Hislop. Mr Lloyd: Oh, you are not going to produce it! Further questioned, witness stated that Mr Thompson was acting as his broker. Mr Hislop ; So that any business he did you would get a commission out of? — Decidedly so. RENEWAL COMYHSSION. But Mr Gurr told you that by assisting Mr Thompson, you would perhaps get lielp from him in the future? — Naturally, he would do so. It is for Mr Gurr's interest to see that I got all the assistance possible from my brokers. I think in the two years you did about £900 worth of business for Mr Gurr? — Yes. . . What would Mr Gurr's commission be on this?— About £100. Well, for about £100 spread over that period, Mr Gurr was expected to do all the work tliat his correspondence with you involved? — Mhat about liis renewal commissions ? Mr Hislop: Never mind about tliose, they would not amount to much. Mr Hislop: Is it not a fact that since you lcft the National Mutual you have persuaded tlijs man Beattie to abandon his policies and take out one in youf new office? — Yes. Did you point out to him that he was losing £70 on it?— How was he losing £70? By losing the vsurrendor value. — It hasn't hecome due. You have since made Mr Thompson yonr hroker for your new office? — Yes. So 'ihat he would not loso by it?— No. ADVICE FROM MAGISTRATE. It certainly seems to me a most immoral way of doing business, conimented Mr Hislop. Further questioned, witness stated that had the policy gone on for another 12 montli s there would have been a surrender value. At this point the Magistrate suggested that counsel should stick to facts. Further questioned in respect to business put through by him throngb Messrs Dalgety and Co.. Ltd., witness stated that he understood tliat Dalgety's got 25 per cent of his commission. Mr Hislop: WThat if I were to say that the 23 per cent was 23 pcr cent of tlie total preminm. Witness: 1 never undersrtood that. T should say it was another of Mr Gurr's ways of heating tlie agents. It has never been the case before. Mr Hislop went on to question witness as to the custom of alher insmance comnanies with their agents, whcn the Magistrate interrupted, statmg that he could not accept evidence on custom. So far as h© could see, the question was irrelcvant. i Mr Hislop : I contend that _ T nave a right to cross-examine on irrelevevant matter. GREEN CHEESE IX MOON. The Magistrate: In this particular matter vou have about as much right to ask tlie witness wketlier the moon is made of green cheese. (Laugliter). Questioned in respect to the car, witness said that he did not at iii'St want the car as he was penniless, but Gurr said that he would give him a ebauee. The first good montli lie liatl for commissions was in November and he was then cleliited for £28. During that montli he made £34 6s 4d. Mr Hislop; Who was paying for lienzine and repairs for the car up to November ? — I was. » . Didn't Mr Gurr pay for lienzine.— Sometimfes, wlien I took him into the country on business, And wlien you went bankrupt did •you show this car that you had agreecl to pay for in your statement? — No, it was not my property. I had not paid for it. ' And you say that without you having h rough t in any business, ^ h_e financed vou with this car and intipiated liis intention of letting you have it on hire pnrchase? — Yes. Witness liere stated that in July wlien Gurr said tliat his account was in dehit. he saw it and it was slightly in credit. WAS HE FED UP? Did not Mr Gurr, after you were in clebit, say that lie was fed up with debiting the niontlily pnyinents on the car and that you would have to make other arrangenients ? — He certainly did not. What other arrangements could I make? It is ridiculous. When Mr Gurr saw you in Wjupawa about the car in September last, you brought the car to Hastings? — No, I came to Hastings and Napier on business. You put the oar in Fraser's garage? — It- was towed there as I had • a brealcdown. Didn't you tell them to send the account to the National Mutual Life Association ?— No, 1 told them to send it to me, care the association. It was sent there in niistake. Has the account been paid since?— No. At this stage, Mr Lloyd looked at' his watch and reinarked that lie had an appointment in Wellington to-day week. "I ohiect to Mr Lloyd's sarcasm, sir. T allowed him to proceed without. interruption, hut he has been cqntinually interrnpting," said Mr Hislop! "Well, we're getfing on ^ery slow]y "Mr Hislop. I've heen h°re since len o'clock and I've written four sides of foolsca.p, while I could have

written 40," commented the Magistrate. Re-examined by Mr Lloyd, witness stated that it was only after he resignv.' from the coinpany that Gurr told him that he would he dehited with £6 expensos for his trip to Wellington, On which lie drove Gurr on business. Gurr never gave him to understand that he was merely paying for the hire of the car. Questioned b.v the Magistrate as to whether, when interviewed b.y Gurr -at Waipawa in respect to the halance owing on the car, the latter mentioned the actual amount due, witness stated that he did not.N This conipleted the case for the plaintiff. FOR THE DEFENCE. For the defence Mr Hislop stated that the evidence would cover the ground of the defence. As far as the car was concernecl there was^ never any clelinite arrangement maclevto sell the car. Counsel intended to call evidence to show that when tlie car was taken at Waipawa, an attempt was made by Hall to claim the car under hire-purchase. It was siguificant that aU the receipts given by Gurr to Hall in connection with the car were for' hire of the car and hire-purchase 1ns only meptioned b.y the plaintiff in his. letters. • •• (Proceeding.) . i-?: