THAMES WARDENS COURT.-Friday. (Before Jackbon Keddeli,, Esq., R.M., Warden.)

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXV, Issue 3750, 26 July 1869, Page 5

THAMES WARDENS COURT.-Friday. (Before Jackbon Keddeli,, Esq., R.M., Warden.)

MTEWART Y. LENNOX. — JUDO MKNT. BU Woiship gay© judgment in this case, the evidenca in which was heard a few days ago, as follows : Thia case, involring the duties aud responsibilities of principal and agent towards third parties, ia of considerable public interest. No doubt such cases as the one before the Court are of frequent occurrence. The fluctuating value of stock and mining property, and the large sums of money daily changing hands on sale*, have rendered it neceesary for the protection of the public aud pievention of fraud that the relation of a broker to his principal, and the principal's liability for his agent's acts towards innocent third parties, should be clearly defined by the law ; and the importance of this understanding is bhown by the prominent position this class of contract occupies in any leading treatise of thi§ branch of law. The first consideration in euch a case as the present, where the purchaser seeks to enforce the performance of a contract made through the agency of another, ih to ascertain the authority oFtbe agent. This may be «ither termed "general," to act in all his principal's affairs, or "special" concerning oome particular object; it maybe "limited" by certain instructions as to the contract he ia to pursue ; or " xmlimited," leaving his conduct to his own discretion. Tbo authority of the agenb may be either expressly given or inferred from the aot of his supposed principal. Now, with regard to the present instance, the defendant Lennox is, it appears, a Bharebroker, cairyine; on business in Auckland, and at a place of business in Graham's Town. At the latter place of business, he has caused or permitted to be advertised hia name and business, by painting the same ia z conspicuous manner on the window, "J, M. Lennox, sharebroker," and underneath the words, "P, B. Cheal, a^nt." It appears that a Mr. Peter E. Cu«al carries on the business of sharebroker in this building, and as he aays in his evidence, "as agent for Mr. Lennox, the defendant." " I act as agent for Mr. Lennox in payment of wages and selling shares with Mr. Lennox's authority." This authority to 1 the world the Court believes to come under ths class called general, but the defendant in hii own interest pleads it to have been special. The apparent vulue of the share in dispute at the time of the sale was £225 and *t the trial was sworn to be of the value of £2,000 (it least. Here wo have sufficient inducement for the principal to seek to limit his agent's authority. Now, the in^rest at stake is considerable for either party to the suit, but I think the principle involved is of great value to the public •• The extent of the agent's authority is, « 8 between his principal and third parties, to be measured by the extent of his usual employment ; for ho who credits another by employing him must abide by the effects of that credit, and will be bound by contracts made with innocent third parties iv the course •! that employment, and on the fnith of that credit, whether the employer intended to authorise them or not, since, where one of two innocent persons must suffer by the fraud of a third, he who enabled that third person to ommit the fraud should bo the Rnfferer." Here in this instance Mr. Cbeal is waited upon by a Mr. Jackson at the place of business where the defendant had published Mb authority, and in the performance of his business he offered to Jnck«oa this sleeping half-hhate in dispute, not only disclosing bis principal, but went to the unnecessary length of explaining his principal's position with reference to llis joint owaer, whose power of attorney he held. His transaction at this time w*a beyond the power of hi* general authority, for he, by the document produced, authorised Jaokgon to sell for him ; whichis at variance with the maxim, " Delegate poteafcatnon poteat foltgftri ; " but when afterward*, on the 39fcb,

June, h e , » 8 agent for defendant, Bold to Mr. Jackson and gave the receipt produced, he wan then -tho Court bolieres it must and ahbtild be inferred -acting under his general authority, published by defendant's sanction fco the world/ The witnest himself admits it to be within the S cop a of hia authority, bat he says he thought at the time he htxd the written «r.t or authority of the defendant, ftnd he and the defendant plead that euch special authority was understood between them to b. necessary What induced Cheal to tbink he had this written authority, which he says h» afterwards— when defendant himself told bim-found to be a mistake ? What but the conversation (if there were T Y ® n tnem °i'anda or iustructiono) with tho defendant, when he informs the ffitnegs, his agent, of hia intention to " cull '» hia shares, and mentioßß among them the very claim in question » It is laid down that, where an ageut is employed with a general authority, particular instructions given to him by his principal, or privatt dealings between them, limiting the general authority, but of which the party dealing with the sgent haß no notice, are ineffectual to restrict the apparently general *uthority as against the latter party. (Leake'a " Law of Contract;* ) Again, how is it that Cheal never once looked for this writte* authority, without which he and the defendant swear he never Bold for defendant. It w ai his duty t<> his principal, and his duty to the plaintiff (or purchaser), to do bo? And it is hold that " the principal is liable to the negligence of his agent aoting in the prosecution of lug business," which this person most cci tainly \ as. What would have been the effect had the share been sold for £500 and the market value decreased 50 per cent, ? Would not the defendant have claimed his right to compel the present plaintiff to complete? Would he have admit.cd tho present plaintiffs plea that he had ratified the act of his agent to sell this share and that he was not authorised before ?' Tho Court believes that he would have rightly pointed out the advertisement on tho window ani in the newspaper, and urged then, what ho denies now, the general agency and the fact of its notoriety. Tho Court believes that the sale was effected by an authorised agent within the scope of bin authority, and that to lulo otherwise would be to give encouragement to fraud. It therefore gives judgment for the plaintiff in the terns of the prayer of the complaint. J. NOSWORTHY AND OTHERS Y. J. FeATON AND Others. —Mr. Macdouald for the plaiutiff; Mr. Hesketh for the defendant.— The plaint in this case was, that the defendants had encroached on the Central Italy Claim. After several witnesses had been examined, Mr. Hesketh raised the question that two of the plaintiffs were joined, who had not given any authority to bring the action. — Mr. Macdonald stated that he took it upon himself to say that he appeared for those parties, Messrs. Douglas and Morrin. After a considerable amount of debate, his Worship said he would ask the plaintiff to take a nonsuit on the point raised by Mr. Hesketh. —Mr. Macdonald declined to take a nonsuit, and examined Mr. No* worthy,— Plaintiff wat nonauitsd on the ground that the action was not brought in the name of the proper parties. Brissenden and another v. Golden Hill Company. — The complaint in this case was that dofeudants had encroached upon the Imperial Crown Claim, by «pplying for a lease of parb of it.— Mr. Davy and Mr. Thurton appeared for the complainantf, and Mr. Maodonald for the defendants.— Edward Torrens Brisaenden deposed that he was one of the owners of the Imperial Crown CJaim. A portion of the ground shown on the plan of the Golden Hill Company's ground was claimed by witnessi The Golden Hill Company had applied for a lease of the ground. The witness then pointed out on a plan the piect of ground in dispute.— The case was then adjourned till Monday. —Advertiser, July 24. ________________