CLAIM FOR COMMISSION.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVII, Issue 65, 16 March 1916, Page 8

CLAIM FOR COMMISSION.

-S.IT UNSUITABLE AGRREMENT. . COURT DIPOSES FIXE. (By Telegraph.—Own CorrespoiHlent.) HAMTLTOX, this -iay. His Honor Mr. Justice Cooper heard a claim for commission at Hamilton yesterday, brought by James Benjamin Scott, Frederick Hawke and H. Noel Armstrong, against Patrick James O'Donoghue. of Canvastown, Ma.-i----borough. The amount in dispute was £392. Mr. P. H. Watts appeared -lor the plaintiffs, defendant not contesting the action. Mr. Watts said the commission was in respect of a farm at Eureka, and the claim was baeed on an instruction to sell, which was admitted by defendant, the commission agTceJ upon being 1\ per cent on the valuation of £If,6SIT, the total irrespective of mortgages. The agreement was put in by plaintiffs, but his Honor refused to admit ;t. as it was not stamped. The Regietur had a duty cast upon him -;o determine whether or not it was liable to stamp duty, and if it vva=. to collect the duty and impcee a fine. Mr. Watts eaid he could proceed withcut the agreement, but his Honor held that it was tendered as evidence, anl plaintiffs conld not move without it. Hie Honor added that there was too much holding of documents unstamped, in the hope that they would never he produced in Court. Mr. Watts censented to pay duty, I', and a fine of £0. and the agreement wa3 permitted to be put in. After hearing the evidence of Hiwke, ha Honor remarked that tIO.GSO the value of the equity of defendants property. He had expressly refrained Horn giving a decision onasimilar point in an action before him on the previous day. In this instance it was stipulate i that the rate of commission was similar to that allowed under the rules of the Auckland Land Agents' Association, and if those rules were proved, and it wa3 shown that ih per cent was the rate of commission allowed, he would hold that plaintiffs were entitled to recover. Evidence was adduced to show that 2< per cent was the recognised rate of commission in Waikato on gross valu-jo both in selling and exchanging. His Honor, in giving judgment, said that without determining whether the principle laid down by Mr. Justice Edwards in the ca«e of Bellingham r. Bly in regard to commission where therj was no definite agreement. hcl.l good, he would allow that ; n this there was a definite authority. Under the Auckland rc!e= 2J per cent was chargeable over the whole transaction on deaUs between £1.000 and £59.000. wiile the Waikato scale was 2J per cent between ill.CO 1 ) and £20.0(10. and at, the rate of lj per cent on deals in excess of the latter amount. Defendant had admitted plaintiffs' right" to commission in this ease, and had offered £300. while there was a definjt* agreement to pay at the rate atipuhted in the Auckland rules. Plaintifft* were, therefore, entitled to recover the full amount. Costs on the middle scale were allowed. His Honor remarked that some tinio he might have to decide iow far 3lr. Justice E<!e'ards* ruling applied in a ease where there was no definite agreement.