A Traveller In The Denaby District And His Commission

Yesterday, at the Doncaster County Court, D. Bailey, commercial traveller, of Mexborough, claimed £16 17s. 6d. from the Fortis Powder and Explosives Company, Limited, who have a branch establishment at Denaby Main. Mr. Gichard, of Rotherham, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Baddiley for the company.

Mr. Gichard said the plaintiff was employed by the defendant’s predecessors as an expert and a traveller. He was paid a weekly wage, in addition to travelling expenses, when the defendant company took over the business. They retained his services, but the terms of the engagement were altered. Plaintiff was originally receiving two guineas per week and travelling expenses and a commission of 2½ per cent. on certain things that were sold. In August last year the defendants desired to make an alteration with the plaintiff as to remuneration, and, after some demur on the plaintiff’s part, an arrangement was come to that he should be on commission alone. The document drawn up specified that the plaintiff should travel within a radius of 30 miles of Denaby, and be paid 10 per cent. on all sales, monthly, on the company’s own productions, the agent to use his best endeavours to push the sales, and to engage in no other business without the consent of the company, in writing. He was also to be paid at the rate of 4½ per cent. on the sale of gunpowder, and 5 per cent. on fuse.

When the plaintiff sent in his first monthly statement objection was taken to it by the company’s manager, who said his construction of the document was that plaintiff was only entitled to commission on sales in respect to new accounts opened by him. That, said Mr. Gichard, would be a most unreasonable arrangement, and, indeed, would be an absurdity. The result was that the engagement was terminated.

His Honour: It is a question of principle and construction.

Mr. Gichard said that was so.

His Honour: Let me hear what the other side says.

Mr. Baddiley then cross-examined the plaintiff.

Was it not an agreement that you should receive instructions from Mr. Briscoe?—No, it was not.

Did Mr. Briscoe send you a book with instructions to report to him daily as to what you did?—Yes, he did.

Did you report to him daily?—Almost.

Did he complain that you did not report to him daily in accordance with instructions?—Yes.

The manager at Denaby simply makes the explosives and Mr. Briscoe is the managing director?—Yes.

Where was the arrangement made as to commission?—In the Denaby office, in the month of August.

Was anything said between you and Briscoe that the commission should be only paid on new custom?—Nothing of the kind.

You and Mr. Briscoe had some communication?—Yes; I wrote to Briscoe about the letter and he answered me with a month’s notice.

When you expressed dissatisfaction they gave you a month’s notice?—Yes.

Did Briscoe say he was paying the same commission which the other travellers of the company received? He never mentioned the other travellers.

Do you know they have other travellers?—Yes.

Do you know what the commission is?—No.

You went to Frothingham for the firm?—Yes.

The company paid your expenses for going because it was a question of experiment?—They agreed to do so.

It is true that I wired to London: “I accept terms as per draft agreement.”

The Judge: I have to judge whether “all sales” mean “some” sales.

The managing director having been examined, the Judge said he must hold that “all sales” meant all sales, though that might not sound very profound. (Laughter.)

Mr. Baddiley: That looks plain I must confess. (Laughter.) We are bound by the written agreement.

Verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount.