MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 16995, 18 March 1919, Page 4

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Tuesday. March 13.

(Before If. V. Widdowson, Ksq., SAT.) * Judgment by default was given for plaint ills in the following cases, :—C..clnmbn Tea Company. Ltd. v. Z. /anchor (oi (Wake), goods, £5 10s, an-1 costs t-ol 5s 6d); John Kerr v. Ernest John Hanley {of iMotnhora, Gisborne), rent or biuruinghouse. £3O, and costs to2 To-). _ _ , 1 Claim for CommisTcn.-—bicvwrtgnf, Haegitt, and Co.. Ltd. (-Mr J- A- Sinclair) v. James Callaghan, of U'cen Island (Mr A. S. Adams).—Claim, £B2 3s 3d. as corn; mission on the sale by way of e.v banco of a freehold farm at Green Island, the properly of defendant.-—Mr Sinclair odd that in December last dependent or ics v. i,c called on tho plaintiff r-Amts and instructed them to either ted or. cxchamre his property. Plaintiffs went to some trouble and got into touch with a Mr Roxby. of Milton, who was sniyi’s also to sell or exchange his property. The par(vos were brought together. Notion „•■ was then finally decided, but the defendant was taken by the agents over Roxby’s property, and later he agreed to exchange his property with Itoxby on certain terms. ; Ho also agreed to purchase leituin stock I and implements for £1.653. '(.'here was a | balance, of equity in favor of Roxby, totalling about £2.500. The agents got the contract for exchange signed, and sxtbi milted that, having done so, they had i tone all they wore bound to do, and became entitled to commission. The dav after tho contract was signed tho wife of the defendant intimated that they wove not prepared to go on, because they had not been able to arrange finances with soino a vents. This matter of finance had boon mentioned to defendant before, but ho had indicated that bo was not prepared to discuss his financial position with them, and was prepared to arrange finance for himself—Charles Coombs, tho air:nt who dealt with defendant, said, under crossexamination. that tho firm got two commissions. Ho denied that ho had said that if tho agreement was signed his linn w run Id see the thine through. Ho d'd not ■ ha Ow defendant needed finance.—Wilfred M.uulo R.ixhy said ibero haul never been any suggestion that the /ale was to be subject to Callaghan being able to fimim o it-—Cecil Jiaggilt. salesman for tho plaintiff, said he saw defendant when (hey refused to go on. The reason they gave was that they could not finance it. They asked if plaintiff firm could finance it, and witnos.l; said they could. But defendant did not ask to bo financed.—Mr Adams raised several points of objection, one being in r.---;pcrt of the “authority” relied upon, lie raid that two things were essential in connection with an authority under the Act—an appointment to act as agent, and tne specific property which the agent was artlioriscd to sell, Tito particulars of property were not shown under this authority. . V. ith rcl-rence to the, genera! question. Mr Adams said that the defence was that tb? whole Iram-ai lion was subject to defendant bc. able to gel finance. Ho was a small dairy farmer, who knew nothing much about business of (his kind. When this transact ion was put through he exnresslv explained ti nt he could not liinmco'it. and expressly stipulated that it bo signed, Coombs. agent for Sicvwright, Hictott, and Co., should undertake flint- Urn firm would see everything right for him. Callaghan lia I no money nor prospect of financing such a transaction. The Court would note that a .-aim oi £2.500. 01 addition Co tho exchange, was required front this -nrll dairy farm or. Further than that. Iha agent for him fair Coombs), and who: e abseJntcly bounded duty it was do protect rind advise him, was acting for both parties. and as soon ns he brought the parlies together and got an agreement signed, considered that (ho end of his duty.' It was a scrimi.> thing, and agents should understand once and for all that this was not (he sum of a land agent’s duties. If agents would take commission from both side; they were bound to take the extremes!. care to sco that they protected the . nitovr .ts of both panic?. If (hat was pot ! possible, ih'-it they should not act for ! ho;]).—Defendant, in evidence, stated tl, ; p the transaction was to he financed, and bo was sidl reedy in complete if plain! ’T? woulo ci ss;i tniance- IVjtnc-s, iinTc | cross-examination, denied that ho had stni.-d to tlu! agent that he could get £ l 2 ■ c l l aero for part of the land.—Mr Smwjnir: And yon ask the Court to hjo l -:,,,.,, right up’ to trie, signing of (he aa-vemneut ini’, din: aooiit finance was men* toped*— M : Ido I ; a denied that tin 1 ranic of M right, Stephenson had over bror* rap utinned in romicction with finance. He admitted, however, lint, although it had boon understood that Coombs was to arrange finance, ho nevertheless vent b’mseti to Vc right, Stephenson to i >e- - n ... - financed, wit boot m; mtioning the. matter to ('combs. Tim oi b*»r wit ness for lin defence was Marin C.aßaglian, wife of ('•-■> defendant, who stated (hat rooms; sto! to Callaghan: “Von sign this par-w, r. r 1 I'll guarantee that everythin g -vi 11 be nil right for yon.” As Wright, Stephenson had tho rnopcv on the ofh«r rnvirti-fv wiivieiis snegested they should go !ir»! to IVri-ht, Stephenson. This firm said if could not be firevered and -ho and defendant .saw Mr Knggitt and told him they could not get finance, and Mr Coombs had '-aid he would arrange ov-v tbinv. Mr HaggTt, who Pne v nothing about it. said he would tall Cncmto,. (Left- sitting.)