King, in H. M. Supreme Court on March 24, S.-H. Levy, described as commission agent, broker and salesman, brought action against E. Manessch for Tls. 49, alleged to be commission due to him in respect of the sale of a quantity of tobacco Plaintiff said that he had entered into a verbal agreement with defendant regarding the sale of 43 piculs of tobacco" leaf, the price being Tls. 8 per picul, and that Gefendant promised that he could have all that he received over Tis.
The leaf was subsequently sold for Tls. 9 per picul but defendant refused to pay him Tis, 49; at the rate of Tls. 1 per picul commission, which sum he now claimed. Plain: Wit said that he repeatedly claimed the money but defendant said, "You didn't sell anything, I don't know you. Get out." and he kicked witness out of his office.
Defendant told the Judge that plaintiff was a partner in the business in 1927 and had caused great losses. A contract was drawn up between himself, plaintiff and Mr. L. Moses, by which Mr. Moses was to furnish the capital for the business. The latter Inter wanted to withdraw because plaintiff simply rat in the office and did nothing to promote business. Plaintiff loft the firm in 1928, As to the to-bucco leaf, there was really 49 picals and 80 catties. This Sold to the Great Eastern Tobacco Ca. at Tls. 9 per picul and witness received the money. He had sold the stock himself: Levy had nothing to do with it and commission was never mentioned.
Plaintiff:—It is very hard to deal with Mr. Manessch, That was why Thad to bring the matter to Court.
He admitted that he went to Mr. Moses and tried to get the money but Mr. Moses referred him back to defendant.
Defendant' (excitedly):—Didn't I keep you for three months in my house? I didn't charge you -for board and lodging. Didn't I tear up the bill for $140 and treat you uz a friend because T knew you since you were six years old? And now you bring me to Court! You have no shame!
Plaintiff said it_ was a jobbing deal but Judge King said that it Twas not: he (the Judge) know [enough about business to know what a jobbing deal was. If it were a jobbing defendant would have sold the tobacco first. The Judge then suggested that it was an unusual way of Going business. If Levy had sold the tobacco at only Tls. 8 per picul, he would receive nothing. On the other hand, if defendant knew he get Tls. 9 for it, he would tave sold it himself instead of ing plaintiff to sell it. There swas a direct assertion on one side and a direct denial on the other, in which case he could only fall back on the old saying that plaintiff, who Urought the action, would have to prove his case up to the hilt. Judg-went, therefore, would be given for
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.