COMMISSION DISPUTE.

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 168, 17 July 1924, Page 3

COMMISSION DISPUTE.

• APPEAL AGAINST DECISION. LAND AGENTS DISAGREE. An appeal against the decision of Mr. J. W. Poynton, S.M., in the case of N. Gory Matthews, land agent, of Auck- ' land, against A. J. Whittaker and A. > V. P. Rowlands, land agents, of Auckland, was hea.rd.in the Supreme Court this morning, before Mr. Justice Stringer. When the case waa heard in the Lower '■ Court, plaintiff claimed commission on 1 the sale of the Exchange Hotel, Parnell, i which was finally effected by defendants. , It was shown that an employee of plain- ; tiff, Laurence V. Porteous, was aware . that the hotel was for sale; he knew also that Whittaker had the sole agency. • He went to Whittaker and said: "If I introduce a buyer, will you share commission?" Whittaker replied: "Oh, yes, I am only too glad." Porteous was [ negotiating with John McSweeney, who subsequently bought the hotel. It was alleged by Porteous that Whittaker never informed him that McSweeney was a possible purchaser, and that he had been communicated with by Whittaker. As a consequence, Porteous was under the impression that he was the sole instrument in getting McSweeney to purchase. The defence in the Lower Court was that defendant had knowledge of McSweeney and his dealings with Whittaker, and that McSweeney could have been induced to purchase without the aid of Porteous. It was also contended that there was no written agreement as to the amount of commission, and that in any case no commission was received. When the appeal was argued this morning Mr. Fleming represented appellant, and Mr. Durham appeared for respondents. Mr. Justice Stringer vias of the opinion that the appeal would have to be dismissed, because an actual contract \ for commission had not been proved. If he were trying the case as an original claim, bis Honor said he would nonsuit plaintiff on those grounds. It was a difficult matter to arrive at the exact nature of any contract existing between them. Mr. Fleming had contended that appellant should have been paid half the commission, and that it was intended that the commission should be the usual amount. However, the amount of the commission had not been proved. His Honor could only uphold the magistrate's decision, and dismiss the appeal. At the same time he did not feel quite satisfied with the behaviour of Whittaker. It was difficult to understand why he did not tell Porteous that he had already been in communication with McSweeney. In these circumstances his Honor would not allow costs to respondents.