Magistrate's Court.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XXXV, Issue 4026, 31 August 1898, Page 2

Magistrate's Court.

ELTHAM. Tuesday, August 30th. (Before Mr Stanford, S.M., and Messrs Godkin, F. Cowern, and G. W. Tayler, J.s P.) There were a good number of residents and business men present at the opening of the fortnightly sitting of the court held in Eltham. Mr Middleton mads a few remarks to the bench, referring to the establishment of a court in Eltham as a great convenience and saving of expense to litigants. Mr Stanford in reply stated that the saving of time and expense to litigants was a just reason for the establishment of a court. CIVIL BUSINESS. The majority of cases set down for hearing were settled out of court. E. Parrott (Mr Syme) v. F. Mayne.— Claim £2 10s 6d. Judgment for amount claimed and costs 14s. O. Wilkinson (Mr Syme) v. F. Mayne.— Claim £21 18s 6d for goods supplied. Defendant admitted the debt, and an order was made for payment on terms. C. Martin (Mr Syme) v. E. Glentworth (Mr Middleton). — This was a claim for £B5 7s, commission on the alleged sale of Glentworth's farm of 107 acres. Plaintiff produced documentary cvi« dence to show that defendant had placed his property of 101 acres in his hands for sale at £15 per acre, but afterwards reduced the price to £14 per acre, and agreeing to re-purchasn 20 acres at £20 per acre from the purchaser of the 101 acres " in any position so long as he got a road to it." Plaintiff sold the property to L. Nairn, receiving a deposit of £5 on the purchase and a stamped agreement, and in every way acted in accordance with the instructions of Glentworth. L. Nairn was called and gave evidence as to paying a deposit of £5 and signing an agreement to purchase, but after interviewing the mortgagee, he found he could not handle the land as set down in the agreement. He spoke of the position to Glentworth, and Mrs Glentworth handed him back his £6 deposit, and released him from the agreement. Mr Middleton, for defendant, said that the instructions given to Glentworth had not been properly carried out, inasmuch as that the statement of mortgage had not been stated correctly and the terms of sale had not been taken down in accordance with the statement of defendant.

Defendant swore he told Martin that he reserved the right to purchase 20 acres on the main road and would not sign the agreement presented to him by Martin, in which it stated that he was to take 20 acres of his farm back in any position the purchaser liked to give him, provided he got a road to it. He denied any knowledge of the words " in any position the purchaser liked to give him." Mr Syme, for plaintiff, produced the authority for sale duly signed by Glenfcworth, in which Glentworth agreed to repurchase 20 acres in any position given him by the purchaser, and, contended that Mr Martin as commission agent had done all the law required of him. It was no concern of Martin's whether an intending purchaser was of means, or on the other hand it was not the duty of a commission agent to enquire into his principle's title. Mr Syme quoted lengthy arguments in similar cases in England and stated that his client had evidently done all required of him. His Worship said his conception of the law was that a commission agent had done all that was required of him when he had put the parties in a position in which a bargain could be insisted on at law. The defendant was undoubtedly an unlearned man and the commission agent had committed a legal fraud, which, however, was a long way from a moral fraud, by obtaining the signature of Glentworth to the agreement without making him clear on its contents, and that he was of opinion the case reßted on the agreement and the words "in any position suitable to the purchaser." His Worship said they would retire for a few minutes to consider their decision, and on returning said that when carefully reviewing the evidence the defendant must succeed, inasmuch as Martin did not set down carefully the wishes of defendant, who said that he could never have agreed to such words as "in any position assigned him by the purchaser." Judgment would go for defendant with costs and solicitor's fee £2 2s.

Mr Syrne wished to know if he might ask the question whether it was legal for J.'rP. to adjudicate with a Magistrate. His Worship said he had no objection to Mr Syme asking, but declined to answer. Court adjourned till last Tuesday in September.