LAND DEALINGS.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVI, Issue 142, 15 December 1908, Page 7

LAND DEALINGS.

AGENT AND BUYER. r A MAGISTRATE'S , COMMENTS. Light on the natmc© of. certain land transactions was thrown % a reserved judgment by Dr. M'Arthur,VS.M., to-day in, the case of Townshend v. Shadgett. In his statement of claim, the plaintiff, Frederick Townahend, stated that in 1906 he employed the defendant George Shadgett as his agent to sell certain land at Karori. The defendant procured a purchaser in one Robert James Kells, of Karori^ and the sale and purchase- was duly completed, the defendant receiving from the plaintiff the sum of £68 15s as commission on the sale. Townshend since ascertained that at the time of the sale the defendant was a partner with the said R. J. Kells in the purchase of the said land, and had received from Kells the sum of £125 as part of the proceeds thereof. Of the fact that the defendant had any interest in the said property or was receiving any sum from the purchaser the plaintiff was never informed. He therefore claimed to recover from the defendant the sum o£ £68 15s. Commenting on the case his Worship said that Shadgett was a land agent in a small way, Townshend, an old g<jntleman with property and in very poor health, and Kells at the time of the transactions, a storeman receiving £1 10s a week. Yet, said his Worship, Kellis was able to enter into a contract to purchase a property for £5420, and m a subsequent, case to purchase a property for £2750. In the first case, in respect of some land in the parish of Punui and Pukekura, Auckland district, belonging to Townshend, and claimed to have been sold to Kells also, that person put down a deposit of £500 by cheque, which was, and still is, said his Worship, absolutely valueless. On this sale Shadgett sued Townshend for £50 commission. Townshend had been put to very considerable trouble and annoyance. A KARORI TRANSACTION. "It would be a .waste of time," said his Worship, "to enter into all the particulars of the transactions." Shadgett and Kells had been in previous trans-. . actions in which they had divided commissions, and in fact had acted as partners. In the case of the Karori transaction Shadgett had an offer of £3000, when he sold to Kells for £2750. This offer he did not disclose to his principal, Townshond. He sold to Kells, who immediately sold to another for £3000. In fact Kells had the purchaser ready and Shadgett know this, bhadgett held a writing from Kells to divide the £250 profit with him, and at the same time, received £68 15s a3 commission from Townshend. Shadgett swears positively that ho gave Kells £25 out of this comi"" mission, and Kells just as positively swears that he never received any money from Shadgett out of the commission. ' It was an outdoor transaction on Con-stable-street hill, so Shadgett asserts. The writing between the two is rather interesting : — "Kilbirnie, 6th October 1906.— Mr. G. Shadgett. Dear Sir,— Re Karori : We have almost completed forming a syndicate to take up the block. In consideration of your not selling it * when you had the chance after you promised it to me, I will divide the sum of two hundred and fifty pounds (£250) with you, profit made by me. This sum will be paid by me in three payment*, the last fifty pounds in twelve months.— I remain, etc. (signed), R. J. Kells." Shadgett said the above offer came from Kells spontaneously, and that he thought it rather a liberal offer. The same process was tried on in the Auckland property, but, unfortunately for them, did not coma off. Kells had got two prospective buyers, as he thought, but the only satisfaction he got was in their good company and in, paying their expenses. IN COLLUSION. "I have no hesitation," concluded his Worship, "in stating my opinion that tho two — Shadgett and Kells — were in collusion to deprive Townshend of a " considerable sum in dealing with his p)operties, and that they were successful in the case of the Karori property, but not so in the case of the Auckland property. The want of success in the latter case has caused these two to fall out, and henco the exposure." In the case of Shadgett v. Townshend, a claim of £50, commission for the sale of the Auckland property to Kells, judgment was given for the defendant, with costs £1 Bs. In the case of Townshend v. Shad* gett, a claim to recover £68 15s, com* mission on the sale of the Karori property, judgment was given for the plaintiff for the full amount (£6B 15s) and costs (£6 8s). j Mr. Neave appeared for Shadgettf Mr. Bunny for Townshend-