Mackenzit v, Henpenson.
This was an action to recover from Mr. D. Marr Henderson the sum of Tis, 534.83, being the cost of quantity of locks and other hardware obtained by plaintiffs on commission for defendant, plus freight und various charges, The defence wes. that the goods generally were not in accordance with the specification; that the plaintiffs Ind not bought in the best market und on the best terms obtainable; that wh the goods were unpacked defendant offerd to take such of them as corresponded with his order; and that they were returned to Englund without his consent or knowledge. plaintiff, and Mr. Re B, Wainewsight for Mr. H, S, Wilkinson appeared for the
the defendant, Mr, Wilkit opening the case for the pi they acted as commission agents the defendant and ordered cer-for him from England. The defendant gave a specification, upon which the goods were ordered, When the goods arrived in Shanghai the defondm plained that they were too expensive. At the request of the defendant they were sent home in order to sew whether the shippers would not exchange them for some others, The shippers refused to d wud the goods were returned to Shanghai. Plaintiffs had paid fur defendant the price ut these goods with certain charges, and they claimed that price and charges plus their commission of O per cent. The defendant pleaded that the goods were not according to his order; but even if they were not strictly in accordance with the order, he (Mr, Wilkinson) would submit that the plaintiff were not linble fo Aifference there wight be, they hn chosen the proper means of getting proper goods; but as a matter of fact it that with thie exception of a very insignificant item (two browze" intend of bronzed" chains) the gonds were strictly in accordance Phe learned counsel was refer to various items in the invoice, when His Lordship asked Mr, Wainewright if he could state anything which might simplify the Air, Wainewright said hie contention was that the goods, almost without exception, were of a more expensive kind than fondant ordered, and were in fact, such 1 would not come within the specification. For instance, locks being ordered, plain tig! agent bad cent out patent locks of exceptional kind, All the things dearer than in the very best makers! logness. One large item which he mention was £38 for finger plates, which were nob ordered. Plaintiffs would have to establish the fuet that finger plates were included in lock furniture." He (Mr, Wainewright) would produce evidence to show that they were not. As an instance of the manner in which the order was filled, he might mansion that finger plates were even sent out for the servants' bedrooms, that was Mr. Wainewright's position, plaintiffs' counsel had better proceed with his case.
William Henry Poate, a partner in the firm of Mackenzie & Ca., said—About July, 1890, defendant brought a specific tion to our office and asked if sume goods could be imported for him, He asked if the conunission would be 5 per _cent., and Ireplied in the airmative. He left the specification at the office, (Mr, Wilkinson read an extract from the specification, showing that the goods were to be of the very best design and quality, but fancy designs are nut wanted.) I gave no special undertaking at that time, such as undertaking to "buy the goods in the best market and on the best terms obtainable." The commission of 5 per cent, does not include tue buyer's commission of 24 per cent. charged in Lo Thave on two or three previous occasions ordered goods from home for the defendant. In these cases I charged home commission, in accordance with the usual custom, and he paid it.
Cross-examined—As regards the order for locks I have nu recollection of seeing defendant at all. Ido not know if Smith and Stevens, the house filling this orde gave any discount on it, If any discount jad been allowed we should have received and not our London agent. We were never asked to inquire about this discount. Tim not aware thatas much as 46 per cent. is sometimes allowed. One manufacturer (catalogue produced) allows 124 and 2b per cent.
Re-examined—I have no reve: to suppose that our agents have recei d any discount on this order.
John Urquhart, clerk in the employ of the plaintiffs, exid defendant came to him about the order, and witness suggested the names of various houses in England supplying article of the kind required. Defendant said he left the matter in witness: hands, and that he wanted everything o the very best, Witness ordered the locks feom Swith and Stevens, knowing that house to be one which supplied only the best goods. Witness then gave evidence as to the goods being sent to London and returned.
Cross-examined—Defendant said wante the locks for hi He did not niention the c was building Robert Mackenzie deposed—I am a partner in the plaintiff's firm. In purchasing from Smith and Stevens I consider 1 was purchasing in one of the best markets, and that the goods, with the exception of the two bronze chains, were im accordance with the specification. "I produce Laxton's Price Book, showing finger plates under the head of "Tock furniture." A first class house would certainly have finger-plates, unless it was wentioved that they were not wanted. When the goods arrived, and defendant objected to them as too expensive, I aug-gested that he should get his contractor to arrange a fair price for them, put them in the louse and pay the balance himself, This he declined to do. I then suggested that they should be sent back, and firm should ask for a cheaper kind, told defendant that if this were done inst bear any expense in the arrangement, I understood defendant agreed to this, and the goods were sent home.
Cross-examined—In Laxton's Price Book finger plates are given under the head of "Furniture for locks, doors, ehntters and bells." did not alter the specification in any way. I consider it would have been presumptuous to do 0, as I was dealing assist Tmay have said I would not with an engineer who had an architect to
have taken the order without further particulars or a limit of price, if I had been in fuct ing to the price of labour Shaughaiatthetime. Large discounts, which
and material, can be obtained off common locks, Ihave heard of as much as 85 per. cent. discount.-When the goods were opened out, defendant objected tu the finger plates, and I then offered to try and get them taken back.
Frederick Montagu Gratton, architect, deposed—I examined the goods in question at plaintiffs' office.. The specification is a loose one, but the articles I saw might fairly have been sent out by any one under that specification. Some of the articles did not come up to the specification, some of the mor tice locks not being of the best design, I have compared the prices as far as possible with similar articles which I have ordered out from home, and I consider the prices reasonable. "Furniture" includes finger-plates, but lock-furniture" does not; it would mean the handles and escutcheons only, Furniture," however, might be understood at home, where doora are generally painted, to include finger-plates, especially for a good house, In ordering from home I always specially exclude ti ger-plates, doors being generally varnished in Shanghai, and not requiring finger-plutos.
Cross-examined—A patent lock is not necessarily an expensive one. It is often necessary in ordering from home to specify what is it required, At half-past three Mr. Wilkinson announced that his case was closed, and Wainewright would be convenient to adjourn, Mr, Wilkinson concurring.
His Lordahip—It you are both agreed T have no objection, The case was then adjourned till next day at 10 a.m, 6th January, The hearing of this case was resumed, Me. H, 8. Wilkinson ai uring for the plaintiffs and Me. R. E, Wainewright for the defendant.
David Marr Henderson, the defendant, examined by Mr. Wainewright, deposed—When I spoke to Urquhart at plaintiffs' store, he said he quite understood what I wanted. I was told that the only commis-was 5 per cent, There was a catalogue Jnmes Hill on the table, and 1 said goods were just the kind I w the specification to plaintiffs night after the interview. Subsequently I wrote to James Hill and to Hart, Son, Peard Ao., asking for price lists and information as to discount, T produce replies, showing the discounts to be respectively 124 and 15 percent. When [saw the invoice I objected it, and Ing. Mackenzie at first agreed with me, saying there had evidently been a gigantic mistake. Afterwards he tried to put the blame on me by saying I ought to have put a limit on the order, T reminded him that it was clearly understood that the order was to be on the bassia of Hill's catalogue. I produce x list of calcula tions for the locks, drawn up by Mr. Dowdall, showing the amount which could have been reasonably spent in executing the order, The amount is £16. Before the whole box was unpacked I had 4 conversativu with Mr. Mackenzie at Mr. Dowdall's office, and I then declined expense. When the goods were opened to have the things sent home at m;
out, I found that they bore the name of Copping, and not of Smith and Stevens, I subsequently obtained Copping's cata: logue, which I produce. (Defendant here, went through "number of items showing that the catalogue prices were lower than the charges of Smith and Stevens.) Accord: ing to Hills catalogue, the locks would cost £11.16, and according to Copping's catlogue £12.10. 'The charge made for locks by Smith' and Stovens ts £52, being the full amount of the invoice less £38 for finger-plates. When I next saw Mr. Mackenzie he said he had decided tu send the lucks home and ask the dealers to return the money; and if they would not do that he would ask them to supply articles: suitable to the Shauglai market 1 pointed
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.