SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 15767, 7 December 1916, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

• ]! KSERVED JUDGMEXT. j At the Supremo Court yesterday I the Registrar (Mr Holmes) read a judgj ntcnt, of his Honour .Mr Justicc Sim I in the ease of Vren, Vere and Eastgatc, i land agents. Christchurch, v. "VV. i>. I Maslin, of Geraldine. ! The case was a claim by H. V. "Uren ! and others (Mr Dougall) against W. jS. Maslin (Mr Kavmond, Iv.C.) for ; £200 and interest as damages for the : alleged revocation oi' an authority as , sole agents to sell the property of defendant. His Honour said, before considering the defences raised, it was necessary to determine what the rights of tho plaintiffs were under the letter of -March 26th, written by the defendant to tho plaintiffs, and which the. plaintiffs contended amounted to an agreement bv the defendant to employ them as his sole apents. Plaintiffs contended that if the defendant revoked their authority to sell tho plaintiffs would be entitled to receive damages for breach of contract. That- in his Honour's opinion was not the effect of the letter. The meaning of the letter lie thought was that the i plaintiffs Wfvo authorised to sell the j property at r.ot less- than £ol) per acre, and that in the event of their effecting a sale, tin or before April '_'4th, they were entitled to retain as commission anything obtained over rtoO per acre. The stipulation as to time i elated to the special commission and not to tho duration of the agency. As to the defence of misrepresentation. his Honour thought the defendant was not mislead by anything that -was said to hint by tho" plaintiffs. He understood the- legal position and knew that the plaintiffs wore not justified in taking up the. position they did. Ho submitted to what ho regarded as an unjust demand and made tho best bargain he could with the. plaintiffs simply because he was anxious to come to terms at once with Messrs Smith and eoulcl uot do so until the plaintiffs' claim had been settled. With regard to the defence of want of consideration, his If on our said the story tokl by the plaintiff's Uren and Eastgatc seemed improbable, and he thought the defendant's version of these interviews was to be preferred. The plaintiffs must have known that the claim which they made wa s not well-founded, nnd their want of bona fides was shown by the fact that the plaintiff Kistgate refused to produce the letter of March 26th to the defendant for his inspection, and ntade. an untrue statement to the defendant that ho (Eastgate) had consflfted a solicitor as to his legal position and had been advised that the defendant would have to settle any claim the plaintiffs had before he could do anything with tho property. The truth was that the plaintiffs took advantage of the defendant's anxiety to settle with Smith without delay, and of Mr Stringer's excessive caution in the matter to extort from the defendant a promiso to pay a sum of money to which they, as they well knew, had no claim either legally or morally. The promise was made therefore without consideration, and could not bo enforced. .Judgment was fo r the defendant with costs on the lowest scale. The disbursements and witnesses' expenses were to be fixed by the Registrar.