CLAIM FOR COMMISSION.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 309, 23 September 1908, Page 4

CLAIM FOR COMMISSION.

(Before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M.) Wm. Aubrey, land and commission agent' (Mr. Dunn), sued Henry Arthur Hurroll, builder, Waiwetu (Mr. Blair), for £106 10s. commission alleged to be due on the 'salo of certain,land. The statement of claim' set out that plaintiff was employed by defendant to dispose of certain land at Alicetown, Lower Hutt,..together with dwelling houses erected thereon for the sum of £4250, plaintiff's remuneration to., be at the rate of 2} per cent.;, -The. claim, alleged that by the. agency of plaintiff .a contract was entered into-on-January 23, 1908, between defendant and one Ernest Edwards, by which defendant agreed to sell to Edwards, by way of, exchange, for the sum of £1900 in cash, and the equity of redemption in certain lands in Nelson valued at £2464. Wherefore plaintiff claimed judgment for £106 10s., being commission on £4250 at 2J per cent. < Hearing of evidence occupied the whole'of the afte£ noon, and at 5.5 the ease was adjourned until 2.15 to-day.,., A BARGAIN IN FREAKS, •i. Finality was reached in the hearing of the case Alexander F. Davies, of Wellington, v: , Phillip .J. Murtagh, of Hawera, a case involving a claim for £30, which was commenced before Dr. 51' Arthur, S.M., in May last. >'The statement of claim presented at the original hearing set forth that on February 14 plaintiff-, purchasedfrom defendant, a freak foal and two calves, a tent and pole, for £200. The sum of £30 v. as handed over tjie same day m part payment,- the balance of £170 being secured ty a promissory note payable on April 10, ,1908. It was alleged that defendant represented to plaintiff that the foal and calves were a show worth from £70 to £112 a week, and that he had taken such sums'by exhibiting the fieaks in Auckland, Christchurch, and Wellington. These representations, which it was alleged were known to defendant to be false, induced plaintiff to make the purchase. Plaintiff therefore claimed, to recover the sum of £30, or, in the alternative, a similar amount ,as damagOs, for misrepresentation... When the case was mentioned yesterday morning Mr. Wilford, who appeared for plaintiff, stated that no more evidence would be called for the plaintiff, who relied on the evidence he had given, also that of Messrs. Derek, Mannersley, and C. Dix. Mr. Morison, . who represented defendant, drew the attention of the Court to certain evidence which had been taken at Hastings, which evidence he proceeded to comment upon. Counsel said he .would not call any evidence for the defence, but would let the case rest as it stood. _ His Worship reserved his decision until Tuesday next. WAGES AND WORK DONE. Wm. Thos. Wenman, pastrycook (Mr. O Leary), sued Norton Smith, tearoom proproprietor (Mr. Neilson), for £5 10s. for work done, and one week's wages in lieu of notice. Defendant paid £3 into Court. After hearing the evitienc# his Worship gave'-judgment for plaintiff for- tho amount paid into Court.. Costs, £1 15.,, were allowed to defendant.