
    JOHN GRIERSON, Appellant, v. THOMAS F. MASON, Respondent.
    
      Written instrument—its object may be slwwn by farol evidence.
    
    This action was brought to recover moneys received by the defendant, as agent, from the sale of goods delivered to him to be sold on commission by the firm of J. S. Groper & Go. and the plaintiff, the successor in business of said firm. The defendant alleged, by way of counter-claim, his employment by the firm, for the sale of their goods, as agent, for one year, at a yearly compensation of not less than $1,500, and a failure by them, and the plaintiff as their successor, to perform the contract. The referee reported in favor of the defendant for an amount sufficient, in addition to the proceeds of sales in his hands, to pay the salary of $1,500.
    After he entered the employment of the firm, he drew up an instrument, which was, at his request, signed by the firm and delivered to him, by which it was agreed that he should have the sole and exclusive right to sell all the goods manufactured by the firm, at prices and terms to be determined by the firm, for a commission of five per c.ent, and to make return of all sales on the first of each month. The referee received evidence, against plaintiff’s objection, to show that the instrument was not intended to operate as a contract between the firm and the defendant, but was given to enable the defendant to procure advances upon the goods manufactured by the firm; held, that the evidence was properly admitted. That the design and object of an instrument in writing, even when apparently perfect as an obligation in and of itself, may be shown by parol evidence, and thus a different effect be given to it from what its contents alone would entitle it to receive.
    
    Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant, entered upon the report of a referee.
    
      A. O. <& JMJ. H. Ellis, for the appellant.
    
      JR. G. Elliott, for the respondent.
    
      
       Blossom v. Griffin, 3 Kernan, 569; Hutchins v. Hebbard, 34 N. Y., 24-26 ; Seymour v. Cowing, 1 Keyes, 532; Barker v. Bradley, 42 N. Y., 316-319; Bostwick v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 45 id., 712.
    
   Opinion by Daniels, J.

Davis, P. J., and Donohue, J., concurred.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  