MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXVIII, Issue LXVIII, 26 June 1912, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

TUESDAY, JUNE 25.

(Before Mr Kenrick, S.M.)

A COMMISSION CASE

Cb^ w fc lMoffiat^ l farmer ' Hawera > sue* Charles Joseph Thompson, land agent Hawera for £10, balance of g deposit alleged to be due. Mr R. G. Sellar, or Mr Halliwell's office appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr CanlJn AY' i I lnstru? ted by Messrs, hSS \ and McCarthy,, with, him Mr McCarter of that office appeared for the defendant. * lhe plaintiff, in his statement of chum, states that on or about April 2, of £rJI r.eoeived th« su™ ot £o0 on behalf of the plaintiff' This. 2 ™f *» deposit .paiS by one Jess? chase by the said Jesse Chitty from the.plaintiff of section 111 Patea d^S to ken, J°f.rjable b-V the defendant tL 3!f Pia i ltlK f°\ mone? received by the defendant for the use of the plain-h»J-i e7T7 n\°f Amission agreed to in ? h p 7" lhe ? kintiff *° the defendant on the said sale was the sum of £40. JTie plaintiff claims from the defendantihl ? Um °I /A 0 ' eing the balance of the sum of £50, after allowing for the commission of £40. wl 16 S?[f ri pdailt hunter-claimed as follows: £ 0 _ for work, journeys, and attendances performed for the plain- ?««.«? L reqT?est x as a commission agent, on the sale or a certain farm, theproperty of the. plaintiff, being sectioT livU tl + ? dls, fcr. lCJ 5 and the defendant g p Jin 0. 11- 16 credit for the sunt i - I-J >eing ,tLe amoun* claimed by thesS ift£4o; vherefor the *****

+i. _»S? llar said that as the clail» for the £10 was admitted, it would be for the defendant to proceed with his coun-ter-claim.

Mr ODea stated that the facts of the case were, shortly, as follows: Moftat was the owner of two sections, Nos. 11l and 112 block 6, Hawera survey district. Moffatt nlaced section 111 in -.Thompson's hands for sale. This was tne section on which commission had • been paid. In March of 1912 Thompson metered out two prospective buyers ta he Se£ tioV- They were Towers and Chitty , The latter declined to make an offer, but he asked about the adjoinmgsection, 112, which Thompson said, ht-% longed to Mr Moffatt, but he (the landagent) had no authority to sell although he believed it could be bought. Shortly afterwards Towers intimated; that he did not intend to have anything to do with section 111. Thompson ami Chitty entered into negotiations, and Chitty asked whether Moffatt would sell the two sections, and at what price Thompson subsequently saw Moffatt who said he would sell at an advancein price of £300 clear of commission and money that had already been paid This ™^ k xed ■Si* at about £47 Per acre. Chitty did not feel disposed to riva more than £45 per acre, but said hewould, give £38 per acre for section 111. An agreement was drawn up between Moffatt and Chitty to sell section 111 and the sale went through. On that same day Chitty asked Moffatt what he wanted for the other section, but Moffatt said he did not think he would sell Jt just then. In April Moffatt sold thesection himself, direct to Thompson's? chent. Chitty. "There is the whole thing in a nutshell," said counsel. "Butfor Thompson he (Moffatt) would not have known Chitty at all." Mr ODea added that there was ample law to prove that a man who introduces a buyer must be paid his commission. Tlie agent could not be deprived of bis commission by Moffatt revoking Thompson's authority and selling himself.

Evidence in ,vipt>ort of the counterclaim was biven by C. J. Thompson and A\ . J. Bell.

AY. Cowern. land agent, gave evidencek concerning the agreement as between Moffatt and Chitty for the sale of section 112.

Mr MeCarteu: Was there any mention in the agreement as to commission? AVitness- I am under the impression there was. He added that he thought the amount was mentioned. Tlie agreement, which was rlrrwii lip by Mr Chitty. was a most imperfect one. This was rthe case for the plaintiff rx the counterclaim. -' ' ' "" :"\

Mr Sellar said, in duty to his client; he was bound to ask for a non-suit. J here was not the slightest evidence adduced to show that Mr Thompson had authority to sell section 112 separately although he had authority to sell section 111 and 112 together. The Magistrate reserved the non-suit pojut. Mr Sellar then called Mr Moffatt, who gave evidence at lensrth, and in the course of which he said he gave the two sections to Thompson to sell on the understanding that he could at any time witndraw section 111. He subsequently withdrew section 112. MTb^i^vitne^ s was crf>ss-examined by 'Vir ODea, but was not very (ilsar as to dates and facts. '' "' Mr Sellar explained that the witness-, met with a severe accident to his head some three years ago. The case "was not finished when tfie> Court rose at 4 o'clock. Tlie further hearuig was adjourned until next Tues-