(Before the Master of the Routs.)
Wruntasox v. Barour.
'The hearing of this important agency case, involving a claim for nearly £100,000, was concluded to-day. It is a suit by' a firm of Messrs, Williamson Brothers "and Ca.," merchants and agents at Calcutta, and now also at Manchester, against the present and members of the fina of Robert Barlour leading merchants and com mission agents in Manchester, to open the settled accounts between the twe firms for a of years, and to obtain repayment of overcharges in their accounts with the ipals. The defendant Robert ago retired from the firm, Charles Augustus Stewart, a former partner, died in 1873, and is uow represented by the defendant J. M. Dunlop. 'The defendant Charles Stewart is also dead, and his executor, Mr. Colville, was made a party by reviver he hn, however, by consent of all parties, een dismissed' the suit without costs, C. Stewart was only a salaried partner for a period of nine months before his death. 'The only present member of the firm is the other defend it, who was cross-examined mart, Letween the parties commenced and under the terms of various agreements the defendants' firm have acted as the agents in Manchester for the purchase and forwarding to india of what are known as Manchester goolls," conivi " white shirts and" gray shirtings." The white shirtings" are not very largely dealt in at Manchester as such but the practice is to bay the gray shirtings," submit them to various processes, euch as bleaching, dyeing, glazing, swwiesing, and thereby convert them into white shirtings. These are then packed, sometimes in bales, tins and boxes, and their principals, and algo by an extra charge con the gross aunount paid the bleachers, with profits on the tickets supplied, on the sums paid for marking the goods,' also on the naunts paid for packing, for tine, and for the es. It was also alleged against them that, although instructed to insure the goods, they had not, in fact, done so, or only to a limited Ithoush they had charged premiums in their invoices on such insurances as if they had effected the same, and also for the poliies and the s 'They were also charged profit on the bills sent discounted, also on the trade lowed the' plaintiffs, by. anticipating actual dates of money' paid and charging their principals interest from the earlier their own goods to the plai and making a profit on them. The main defences raised by the defendants were knowledge on the part of the plaintiffs that there charges were made, and also that according to the usage or custom of the Manchester trade they were such as were usually mate by a house ike the defendants'. The defendants also claimed to be principals in everything except as (o the buying, and to be entitled to charge a fair profit on what they did to the goods, and as to the claims for insurances the defendants' counsel admitted that~in Some instances no insurances had been effected, but they contended that the defendants had insured themselves, and that being a solvent and, as stated by one of the couvecl, of books had been brought' w Some of the witnesses India and others in England before a special examiner. The rest of the evidence documentary and by affidavit. Mr. Wi Graham, of the Firm of W, Graham and Ca.; Mr. John Pender, and Mr. Heugh, of the firm of Heugh, Balfour, and Ca., were cross-examined in court as to the existence of the alleged custom in Manchester.
the hearing of the case ins occupied fiv days, At the conclusion of the cross-examni tion, the Master of the Rolls pronounced a long and elaborate judgment, taking nearly three hours in its delivery.
Sir Henry James, Q.U., Mr. Chitty, Q.C., Mr. WB, Robinsov, QC., and Mr Bryce appeared for the plaintifis; the Attorney General, Mr. Benjamin, Q.C., Mr, Marten, QC. and Mr. Romer for te defendants Blair and Dunlop; Mr. Southgate, Q.C., Mr. Edwards, Q.C., and Mr. Kenneth Mi, Mackenzie for the defendant R. Barbour; and Mr. Davey, QC., and Mz. Lovett for Mr. Colville, now dismissed the suit, The Master of the Rolls, in delivering jadge ment, said he was glad that the case would Knowledge that auch would this was very heavy, bu! factory to know that if he did make a mi could be corrected by the higher tribunal, The bill was one by principals against their ents to open settled accounts on the ground of numerous and serious errors. The practice in such cases was either to open the accounts altogether or to surcharge and falsify certain items if the errors were not of sufficient importance to open the whole account, The Courts had always opened accounts more Teadily when the persons stood in a fiduciary relationship to one an such as that fof trustee and cestui que wrist, or principal and agent, and when you could show a single instance of fraudulent overcharge xs between principal and his agent the Court would reopen the accounts, All that was necessary, therefore, for him to decide in the present application was whether the plaintiffs had molle out sufficient gross and fraudulent overs charges to enable him to open the accounts, wing the consideration of the' particular items and the allowance or disallowance of any part thereof, to be dealt with subsequently in Chambers. As to the main question in the case, the defendants did not dispute that an extra charge had been made in almost every item in their " but they justified these overcharges on various grounds. After enumorating the various heads of complaint made vat the defendants, his Lordship said that as to thw insurances there was no dispute th the defendants had been directed to insure and had charged the insurance, although they had not actually done so for the amount represented, hey had also charged for Premiums and for policies which were never paid. As to the discounts, too, the matter was practically admitted. The defences to the charges which wore not admitted were somewhat curious, The defendants denied their agency except for the purpose of buying, and an attempt had been male to show that as soon as the defendants had bought, the relation of principal and agent ceased. As to that he was of opinion that they bought and forwarded as agents, but that they were principal for the purpose of packing and such like charges, and were entitled to make a reasonable charge for so doing, and which he could allow them when the matter came into Chambers. That circumstance, however, did not alter the main relationship between the parties which was that of principal and agent, any more than if they had employed a packer to do the work for them. As regards the gray goods, the charge bad been denied; but as to the particular instaners which bad been picked out by the plaintiff's counsel as satables of the rest, he was of opinion that they had clearly proved their case. It was not suggested that an agent for buying was entitled to charge his principal anything more than what he kad
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.