IMPORTANT TO STOCK AGENTS.

Evening Star, Issue 10302, 30 April 1897, Page 4

IMPORTANT TO STOCK AGENTS.

A judgment of considerable interest to those who do business with auctioneers was given the other day at Pahiatua by Mr Haselden, S.M. The oaße was that of Abraham and Williams, a widely known and respected firm, against JSctM Bros., in which plaintiffs claimed £4 123</fid for work performed by the plaintiffs at the request of the defendants in the sale of 300 sheep. The plaintiffs said they were entitled to charge the defendants commission Nit the rate of 4 per cent, on the price of 7a 9d per sheep, being the price at which the said sheep were sold under the following circumstances:— The defendants entered the sheep for sale at the plaintiffs' auction Bale held on the 13th Ootober, 1896, with a reserve of 83 6d per head. The reserve was hot reached at auction, but immediately after the auction sale was over, on the 13th of October, the plaintiffs, on behalf of one Alexander Walker, offered the defendants 7s 9d per head, which offer defendants refused, and removed the Bheep from the plaintiffs' auction yards, and three days later sold the said sheep to the said Alexander Walker for the price of 7s 9d per head. The market price of the sheep between the 13th and 16th did not alter. Under these circumstances the magistrate was called upon to Bay whether plaintiffs could recover a commission on the sale of the sheep. Mr Haselden's decision is thus reported in the ' Herald':—" There were no special arrangements made between the parties as to the terms on which the sheep were entered for Bale, or as to any sale which might be effected privately by the plaintiffs on behalf of the clients, but the custom was to charge 4 per cent, on sales effected by auction and 2k for sales by private contract. No charge was made for advertising or yarding sheep entered for Bale, and had the defendants not sold the sheep the plaintiffs would have made no claim against the defendants. In my judgment there was a contract between the parties that the sheep would be offered for sale by the plaintiffs at auction with a re-'

serve of 8s 6d a head, which would give the defendants a ohance of obtaining more for them. When the-auction was over," without the reserve being reached, the contract* between the parties was at an end, and defendants were at liberty to remove their sheep without paying the plaintiffs anything, and were certainly not bound to accept any private offer at all. The defendants removed their sheep, and three days afterwards sold them to the same person, who, through the plaintiffs, offered 7s 9d, and this they had in my opinion a perfect right to do without paying the plaintiffs any commission. The circumstances are quite different from where property is placed in the hands of a commission agent for private sale and a sale is effected through the instrumentality of the commission agent. Here the contract was for a sale ' by auction,' and that not having been effected the contract waß at an end, and the defendants removed the sheep from, the yard. I do not think that under the oircumstances any rights remained in the plaintiffs, or that they could charge commission on a sale effected by the defendants subsequent to the removal of the sheep from the auction yards. It is quite possible for the plaintiffs to stipulate for commission on Bales effeoted' through their instrumentality, whether at auction or privately, or to charge for entering sheep for sale where no sale takes place by auction ; but none of these conditions were imposed by the plaintiffs. It was merely a case of a man offering his property for sale by auction, and, no sale being effected by such method, closing any arrangement between himself and the auctioneer. Judgment will therefore j be for the defendants with usual costs."