COMMISSION DISPUTE.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20734, 20 December 1932, Page 5

COMMISSION DISPUTE.

LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED. CITY BUILDING LEASE. The dispute over the, claim of Sydney Overend; lttnd agent, of Christchurch, for £123 10s, allegedly due as cbmmission for the successful leasing df the premises now occupied by the Cafe Fritscati on behalf of Morris itbllaiider, company director of ChfiStcHurch, reached its final stage yesterday when an application by Overend for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was dishiissed. The case began originally in the Magistrate's Cburt when judgment was {liven against Overend v in his claim i'or commission, which was based principalis on the ground that he had been jipaoinlca agent for the property by HoJlMair. This was disputed by tlio defeiice and tJvefend lost, his case. An appeal against this judgment was h&ard in the Supreme Court by Mr Jtiit.lcc" Ostler, and he gate judgment &n Decfetnber Bth last dismissing th<j appeal and upholding the opinion of the L&w&f Codft, on the ground that the blalntlfJ had failed tb prßve the existence of a contract between himself and respondent. Accordingly yesterday Mr E. I* Saunders, for the plaintiff, moved for leav. to Appeal again* M* Justice

—Jhafr—t—liMii iiiniiiiinutif t riimi<imiinn!KCTtt-tem OStler's decision. Mr ."■'. I>. Hutchison appeared for respondent. HIS titiiiour's Decision. After hearing legal argument from Mr Saunders his Honour pointed out that he hud originally decided the ease on two questions of fact. Tile first was that no contract existed appointing Overcnd agent for respondent and, secondly, that Mr A. AV. Smithson, solicitor "for respondent, had received no authority to appoint Ovcrend agent. His Honour quoted his judgment Riven at the hearing °f the appeal and added: • "My opinion at the time was that, Hall, tho salesman employed by Overeiid, ' played a trick on Hollander in order to ' bind him to accept the contract. i "The only question I did not deal with i at length on that occasion and the only now point raised in this application," ' continued his Honour "is the suggestion ' that because Hollander had the advan--1 tage of Overend's work he must be held 1 to have ratified Overend's appointment as his agent. The answer to that is elementary—it is that Hollander gave no consent to and had no knowledge of 1 Overend's work. "The case is a very simple one ana ■ was decided practically on the facts fto important point of law or of general public interest is concerned and it is onlv when it is of general importance , that a case on appeal from a Magistrate is allowed to.go forward from the , Stipreme Court. I do riot think that general importance, exists here and ; therefore I must dismiss the application." .„ , -