DISPUTED COMMISSION.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVI, Issue 62, 13 March 1915, Page 6

DISPUTED COMMISSION.

LfEASEHOLD OK FREEHOIiD VALUE. A fiompwhat involved case in relation j to an agent's claim for comission occupied the Magistrate's Court the whole of yesterday afternoon, and again from 0.30 o'clock this morning. The plaintin" was William Vicars, trading as W. J. Short and Co. (represented -by Mr. Anderson) and the defendant" John. Xicholae Crowe (Mr. Bagnali). Apart from legal points raised, the real dispute on the facts was ac to whether plaintiff was entitled to recover commission as on a freehold in a transaction regarding a leasehold. It wag claimed that plaintiff wae not instructed that the property was a freehold, but this was denied by defendant. The original claim was £89 5/, as 2$ per cent on £3,456 5/, and £2 5/ as 5 per cent commission ou stock sold the farm, also £40 advanced to deiendant from deposit psjd by the purchaser, making a total of £129 5/. Againet this 'plaintiff gave credit to defendant for £100 deposit paid, leaving a balance of '£29 5/, whi.h it was sought to recover. Defendant was prepared to allow plaintiff commission upon the goodwill of a leasehold of 90 acree estimated at £15 per acre. Defendant had a purchasing clause over the property at £20 per aqre. At the conclusion of plaintiffs case, Mr. Bagnali moved for a nonsuit, which was argued for some time. Mr. Kettle said while it was clear the property was sold, the authority to sell was given by the defendant's wife, but there was no evidence given of her autho. rity to do so. Mr. Anderson claimed that Mrs. Crowe's action was afterwards confirmed by defendant's conduct. Mr. Kettle pointed out that authority to sell must be signed in writing by the vendor before commission could be recovered. Mr. Anderson pointed out that while the Act etated " cannot sue for and recover," it did not state " cannot retain." In this case plaintiff retained £100 paid on deport, out of which he advanced £40 to defendant. His Worship decided to reserve his decision on the nonsuit point, and evidence was given by defendant, who was cross--examined at great length. Mrs. May Crowe identified the document she signed authorising plaintiff to deal with her husband's property. She had called in to ask if he had any inquiries for a farm, and plaintiff wrote out the form, which she signed. She told plaintiff her husband had a lease of the farm ; with right of purchase. She had no instructions from her husband to ■place the property in an agent's hands. She said she wanted £35 per acre. She was staying a week in town and went to another agent as well. She signed the authority without reading the document. When she told her husband he said she should not have done it. By Mr. Anderson: Her husband di:l not tell her to write to Vicare. withdrawing the instructions ehe had given. The further hearing was adjourned until next Tuesday.