LAND AGENCY CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 244, 12 October 1907, Page 7

LAND AGENCY CASE.

■ .>. M-£hz S3L's Court on Thursday a - BiHteTriiat peculiar case was heard before Mr District Judge Kettle. _The a land agent of Hamiiron, cbinfid £119 11/6 from Mr John Michael arcCarfhy, a sheep fanner, of Auckland, fear commission on certain land transactions- The statement of claim Xt out various items comprising the amount involved, one charge being ior attending the sale of a. lot of acres. According to the plaintiffs story, he criginany sold the block to a Mr TsTiffit Subsequently he met a Mrs JgHjv wio offered to give Knigiit some-tTiing'-fiTi his bargain. He then, inter•nesred Enight, who agreed to accept =5- on Ins bargain. Shaw then "cast his nets"- to see if he could make more «nt of it, and the outcome was that KEight and Shew agreed to "split the difference , between them anything they faraM. asks over- and above the £5. SniseqEOitly tie block was sold at £80 per acre. -' Siiw stated that he paid one Tali of ffie profits to Knight, "and the other jjajf to McCarthy. It -was admitted thit Shaw ■wes acting for McCarthy, •who. tsss absent "from the district at the tfcne. Eβ Worsmp, in giving judgment, up- • Md the statement of the delendent, and gave judgment accordingly. a certain cheque for £8, said to have l Jieen paid to plaintiff by defendant some two years ago for board at the Central , ."FnteL - frre Worship said that defendant lad absolutely sworn that that money "sas paid to plaintiS. and statement were corroborated by the cheaue tally, • . tnd thepiaintiE, on the other hand, had t fefled to establish that sneh money had not been paid to m-m H e (plaintiff") kad said that he had no recollection c* it, bnt he -would, not swear that he did not receive it. His Worship was "ssasSed on that point that the "money lad beea-psid to plaintiff.