TRANSACTION IN TIMBER.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 250, 19 October 1907, Page 7

TRANSACTION IN TIMBER.

COMMISSION" CLAIM t>tsa.t,t/>W-K[>. The case in which James Dacre, com-, mission agent, of Queen-street, sued Eliza Ann Workman, executrix: of the "will, of the fate Robert: Workman, for £ 175 ; commission on the proceeds of: timber wMcri\the plaintiff alleged he had sold, waa continued:at the Magistrates*'! Court yesterday afternoon. Mr. J. R. Reed appeared for plaintiff, and Dr. H. D. .Rami ord for -the defendant. The plaintiff, in concluding his evidence, averred, th«t_he had not noticed the word " net" in Mrs. Workman's reply to bis offer pfV£3aoi untd-Mr. Cotter, pointed it-bu.t-to him.. The usual.rate of commission-on-the sale of timber «as sper c'ehfc. • '■. '"■"- - - -■*- '" . - Herbert E. Yaije, ; of trie firm of S. Vaile and Sons, stated that the usnal rate on standing timber was 5 per cent :on the first £ 100, and 23 per cent on the balance. In big sales, .2"- per cent was. generally charged throughout. Witness tEought 5 per cent unreasonable. Many •people; would consider £3500 a big transaction. _ - To Mr.- Reed: Witness- always made special arrangenients beforehand eoneem-nig-commission in timber sales.. . The, defendant, gave evidence to the effect that prior to the beginning of the year Mr. Dacre made several offers for the bush;, but she did not, before February, place- the property in his hands for ' sale.- Mx. Dacre came to he r house-aiid.'. offered her £3000, which she refused. Her price was. not mentioned then.; The next day plaintiff, advanced . his offer £200 or £300, but she again.declined it. The following day fie" came; back again, and, speaking Of -the trouble- be had taken in the matter, said- he would"like . to- get the- commission Witness reminded him, that she had, not asked him to sell the timber, and he said he knew . that. Later on, witness put the price of; £3500- net on-the timber, but Mr. Dacre stated- that his commission would have ito come- out of the sale. - Witness replied: that that was his affair, and if he could get, it,, she would let the timber go. She received the draft agreement for her perusal, but did riot sign it, as, on inquiry, she found that the amount was not net. Afterwards Mr. Goldie came ont to her house, and offered.her £3500, the purchase being accordingly completed. >. To Mr, Reedr, Mr- Cotter had not, to her knowledge, placed the;, bush in Mr, Dacre's hands. Dr. Bamford: The instructions were withdrawn,--- - -.—— -«~™, .' To Mr. Reed witness stated that wnen she saw Mr.- Dacre-in Queen-street the timber was not mentioned. She had" norecollectiori of being informed that Mr; Dacre had received £ 150 from. Mr. Goldie. Mr. Kettle intimated that'he: did hot wish to hear any inbre • evidence, as he was quite satisfied that no ,iisse bad been made out. The plaintiff's evidence concerning his books was contradictory-,-and, as a whole, unreliable. Mrs. Workman's letter had distinctly stated the word "net," he could not believe that Mr. Dacre, an experienced ; business manj in reading a short note like that, could, have missed that wor<L Again, ■plaintiff- had gone to : Mr. taken Mr. Goldie's cheque for £150 without any receipt or agreement, and further, had not informed his client of the deposit. He had;no right or power, to receive that deposit. He, bad stated that he had entered his instructions" in a book, but he could not produce the book. While he did. not say that plaintiff bad stated anything he believed to he false," his evidence could not be accepted. . Plaintiff would be non-suited with costs.