MacConnell versus Bussing.
Page 10
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
This case recently occupied the attention of Mr. Justice Grantham and a special jury for two days. The plaintiff was Mr. James MacConnell, who described himself as an accountant and also a director of Straker and MacConnell, Ltd., arid the defendant was Mr, H. Bussing, of Brunswick, in Germany, manufacturer of motor-omnibus chassis, and who is represented in this country by Sidney Straker and Squire, Ltd. The plaintiff claimed 1.500 for services rendered to the defendant under a verbal agreement, and there was a direct conflict of evidence between tile parties, both as to the making of, and the terms of, this agreement.
According to the plaintiff, he was, in the month of July, 1905, travelling on the Continent for pleasure, while his son, Mr. II. P. MacConnell, also a director of Straker and MacConnell, Ltd., was touring the Continent on-business in search of motorcars suitable for the English market. The father and son met, and they appear to have visited several towns in company, when, happening to read in a Continental paper an advertisement of the defendant's, of whom neither father nor son had heard until that moment, they resolved to pay a visit 10 Mr. Bussing, and to ascertain if he had any goods for sale. They presented themselves, at Brunswick, on the 81st July, 1905, and having sent in their cards were invited into a private room, and introduced to Mr. Biissing's confidential manager, Mr. Staib, to whom they explained their mission. Mr. Stall) informed them he was afraid Mr. Bussing could not do business with them, at he was bound to Sidney Straker and Squire, Ltd., his sole agents for England and the Colonies. According to the plaintiff, Mr. Staib then proceeded to inform him that Mr. Bussing was extremely dissatisfied with his English agents, as he had reason to believe that they were not acting in his interests, but were advertising and selling his chassis as of their own manufacture, and were copying his chassis in England, and Mr. Staib suggested that the plaintiff should assist Mr. Bussing by procuring evidence in England of these facts, so as to enable him to get out of his agreement with his English agents. The plaintiff informed Mr. Staib •that he might be willing to undertake this task as a private matter, but he would require to be paid a suitable fee for his services, and to have his expenses defrayed, to which Mr. Staib agreed, and, further, asked the plaintiff whether, supposing the defendant were successful in getting rid of his English agents, the plaintiff's company would take up the agency. To this proposal the paintiff did not commit himself, saying that it would depend upon the terms of the agency, and also upon the class of chassis manufactured by the defendant.
This was the story unfolded by the plaintiff in the box, and confirmed in every particular by his son, who claimed to have been present throughout the interview.
Mr. Staib, who was called for the defendant, gave a different version of the interview. Tic stated that, when the plaintiff and his son called at the defendant's works, the former desired to see him privately, and was accordingly taken to a private office, his son retiring to the waiting room, and that, thereupon, the plaintiff proceeded, much to Mr. Staib's astonishment, to explain that he was fully conversant with the disputes which had been going on between the defendant and his English agents,
that he was sorry the defendant had fallen into such bad hands, and that he could bring convincing evidence that Sidney Straker and Squire, Ltd., was not working in defendant's interests. Further than this, he would be pleased to supply this evidence on his return to England, and the only reward he asked for was that, if it enabled the defendant to get rid of Straker and Squire, Ltd., he would appoint the plaintiff's company agent in its place. These terms, Mr. Staib stated, he agreed, subject to the references to he given by the plaintiff's company proving satisfactory. It was not disputed that certain information in the shape of newspaper cuttings was supplied, and also the report of a visit to Bristol, but whilst on the one hand the plaintiff valued this information, and other alleged services, at £500, the defendant stated that the cuttings were worthless, and were, moreover, already within his knowledge, and the fact remained that the defendant did not break with Straker and Squire, Ltd., and Mr. Squire of that company gave evidence in support of defendant's case.
It was put in evidence, too, that an interview took place in London on the matter, on the 9th August, between the plaintiff and Mr. Staib, when another member of the MacConnell family appears to have been present, viz., the plaintiff's wife, and Mrs. MacConnell was called to corroborate the plaintiff's story that at this interview Mr. Staib, in reply to the plaintiff's demand to be paid his fee and expenses, promised that the plaintiff would be amply rewarded by the defendant when Mr. Staib returned to Germany. The amount subsequently remitted was £25, which the defendant considered was an act of grace, but which •the plaintiff said did not actually cover his out-of. pocket expenses, and that he required a handsome fee in addition, and, failing to get satisfaction, brought his action. Some facts were brougiht out by Mr. Montagu Shearman, ICC., in cross-examination of the plaintiff in this ease, which threw a further light on the early history of Strainer and MacConnell (190B), Ltd. Plaintiff admitted that, at the time when the above transactions were taking place, Straker and MacConnen, Ltd., had only been in existence some four months, having been registered on the 23rd March, 1905, and at this time had only a capital of £1,000, half of which was held by himself, his wife and his son. He denied that there was anything remarkable in the fact that the name of " Straker " (a name well known in the motor world in the person of Mr. Sidney Straker) formed part of the title of the plaintiff's company, or in the fact that he and his son on their travels should quite accidentally can upon Mr. Bussing, of whom they •had never previously heard, and that his English agents should happen to be Sidney Straker and Squire, Ltd, In charging the jury, his Lordship invited them to consider whether the plaintiff had rendered his assistance to the defendant solely with the object of being remunerated for his services, "or whether he was only too willing to put a spoke in the wheel of Messrs. Straker and Squire so that he might oust them and take their place. The jury, without leaving the box, found v verdict for the defendant, and judgment was entered accordingly.