LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1578, 23 October 1912, Page 4

LAW REPORTS.

GLENBROOK SALE

(Before Court of. Appeal,)

WAS COMMISSION EARNED?

The question as to wlu-lhor a firm of Inud agents had earned commission for the work done by them in finding a purchaser for the Ulenbrook Station, Ifawke's Day, was before the Court of Appeal yesterday. The bench was occupied by Air. Justice Williams, Mr. Justice Deniiistoni and Mr. Justice Edwards,

the parties concerned in the action were Kenneth M'Kenzie, farmer, Huwke's liny, appellant, and Harcourt and Co. land agents, Wellington, respondents. Mr. C. I'. Skerretl, K.C., with Mr. J. 11. G. Murdoch, of Napier, appeared for the. appellant, while Sir John Findlav, K.C., with Mr. D. 31. Findlny, appeared for Harcourt and Co.

In the original action in the Supreme Court, it was stated that M'Kenzie held Glenbrook Station, a property which was composed to a considerable extent of leasehold land. He instructed Harcourt and Co. to sell the property with, certain stock, crops, and chattels, for .£10,300, out of which Harcourt and Co. wero to receive £150 as- commission. They claimed .£350 on tho ground that an agreement of sale had been completed, and that it would have been ofl'ectcd but for the conduct of M'Kenzie.

In defence, M'Kenzie contended that Harcourt and Co. had entered into a contract which was a. breach of his in. struchons, and was not binding. Ho denied, therefore that thev had earned a commission, and claimed that as no deposit had been taken, a breach of his instructions had been committed. He coun-ter-claimed for .C7OO (the amount of deposit he had stipulated for) as damages. His Honour decided in favour of Harcourt and Co. In giving judgment, he said thnt at the time when plaintiffs were prevented by defendant from having tho contract completed they had found a purchaser able and willing to complete tho purchase. They we're therefore entitled to their commission. Judgment would bo for plaintiffs on the claim for'the amount sued for, .£350, and also on the counterclaim, with costs.

From this decision M'Kenzie now ap. pealed, on tho ground that it was erroneous in law.

■ Argument had not concluded when the Court adjourned until 10.30 a.m. to-day.

SLANDER ACTION."

NONSUIT POINT;ARGUED!

Argument was concluded in the Court of Appeal yestqrday on the question as to whether or not Mr. Justice Edwards was right in dismissing a motion for nonsuit in a Mnstcrton slander faction. The bench wns occupied bv the Chief «r, 1 .- M (S i'; lf , oWt • Stout )> JJr ' Justice Williams Mr. Justice Denniston, and Mr. Justice Chapman. The/parties concerned!in the appeal l wero Charles Bowles, farmer, of Waihakckp, appe lant, and Sarah Emma Arm-strong,-widow, of 'Carterton, respondent. . Mr - A -,}\- Blair, with Mr. P. L. Hoi!mes, of Mnstertou,' appeared for the ap. pellant, whilo Mr. A. Gray, with Mr. Coleman Phillips, of Carterton, appeared for the respondent. An outline of the proceedings in the Lower Court appeared in yesterday's issue. At the conclusion of argument, thear Honours reserved decision.