S.M. COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIII, Issue 167, 13 July 1912, Page 9

S.M. COURT.

*" ■ - '(Before ilr. c.'d. Kettle, S.M.) A LAND AGENT'S CLAIM. The case, C. J. Owen v. M- G. llctiregor, claim for £87 10/, commission on the sale of a property, .was concluded yesterday _i„f r ?_?" "- 11 -. -_ l Earl appeared for the plaintiff, and Dr. H. D. _!_m_o.d for the defendant. Ml.. et>regpr. jin the course of bis evidence, slated that he had not authorised Mr. Owen to act as his agent for the sale of the property, and In his dealings with Mr. Owen over the matter had treated the latter throughout as an agent acting for a P°? sbl A.' bt »_er. Mr. °* had repeatedly asked film to lower his price, i_aX«_t Owen told him that he had sold the pr.l perty for £3600. he remarked that It was _?*♦„_?• and he <xmld not consider _els__ at that figure. The defendant's managtal clerk gave corroborative evidence, In which he said that he had never understood that ttepropertj Was In Mr. Owen's h___s for he ll -_et-_-'_ Bai<l 1 5, main question to he decided was one of fact, vlt whether hv 6 .{M? Wa . f »P'°ye«« or •in-__!-_-_ __, "\.___; f -?.. Nt *.. l lMi a Purchaser for -.-no M *w? ntß nsOllby Property- at _.*_°_' _x_ /hei '. a lau<l a eent comes into Court with a claim for commission or remuneration he. must dearly establish by satisfactory and reliable evidence, that he was really employed or instructed, and he should also be prepared to prove the terms on which he was employed, the extent ot his authority, and that he has done everything undec. the agency to entitle Mm to remuneration. The employment need not be evidenced by writing, although; as has so often been said, a wise agent who conducts his business on proper business lines should always endeavour to have his instructions in writing and clearly denned. The agency may no doubt be created verbally or eveu by the consent of or course of dealing between the parties, but in any case the proof must be clear and convincing, and the onus proband!, when the agency or the terms thereof Is disputed, is always on the agent. in the present case the agency was disputed. The plaintiff slated that he was verbally Instructed by defendant somewhere about October, November, or December, 190-, to find a buyer. He could not flx the date nearer than this. Lie made no entry at the time of the alleged instructions, In any of the boots which he keeps for the purpose. The defendant, on the other baud, absolutely denies that he ever employed or Intended to employ tbe plaintiff as bis agent. lie explained that be saw plaintiff's advertisement in the ! papers for a residence for a client, and in answer thereto saw the plaintiff, and told him that he (defendant) would sell his Ponsonby property for £3,500, but never instructed or employed the plaintiff as his agent to find a buyer, the property being already In the hands of his agents, Vaile and Sons. The plaintiff further stated that in all the subsequent conversations and negotiations which •he had with the plaintiff he always understood that the plaintiff was acting for one of his clients not for him-, defendant. Referring to the i Interviews and correspondence between the plaintiff and defendant subsequent to October. 1909. his Worship said that there was not sufficient evidence to Justify a finding that an agency was created by the consent of the parties Subsequent to 1 October. 1909. The onn. was ou plaintiff !to satisfy tbe Court beyond reasonable I doubt that the agency had been established, 'and he had failed to so satisfy his Wor- [ ship, Plaintiff must be nonsuited, with .costs.