MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXVIII, Issue LXVIII, 27 June 1912, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26

(Before Mr Kenrick, S.M.)

CIVIL CASES

rr-Roy orm own correspondent.;]

J. Robinson v. H. Gower.—This was a case to recover freight charges in connection with the delivery of a dog. Robinson gave evidence that at the time he was agent for the New Zealand Express Company, and took delivery of the dog from the railway, paid the charges, and delivered the dog to Gower. Gower had refused to pay the charges—l6s. H. GoAver gave evidence that the reason he had not paid the charges was that he had arranged with the sender of the dog—a friend of his —that the charges would be paid at the other end. He also considered the charge too high. Judgment for amount claimed, 16s 7d, and costs £1. Judgment by default was given in the followling cases: I. J. Bridger (Mr Weir) v. J. Varna, £1 10s (balance of cost), costs £20; W. T. Bailey (Mr McVeagh) v. P. Hakaria, £5 ss'; costs 32s 6d. A.COMMISSION CASE. This was a case in which J. "Wheeler, land agent, Eltham, sued Mitchell for £12, commission for services in completing the sale of a farm. / Mr Weir appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Sellar for the defendant. Mr Weir, in opening the case, said ■ this was not an ordinary case in which the agent introduced the buyer to the seller. The buyer and seller had met first themselves, and had a conversation about the sale of Mitchell's farm, after which they went and.saw the farm. Sanson said he liked the property, but could not finance it unless he was able to meet a mortgage which he held. Sanson was unable to meet the mortgage. Afterwards Wheeler and Sanson met. and Wheeler told Sanson that he thought he could sell his mortgage. They then arranged to go out and see Mitchell as to the sale of the farm. Wheeler put the matter before the parties, and it was agreed that he was authorised to complete the transaction. He called W. E. Anderson, solicitor, Stratford, who deposed that at the request of Wheeler he, in company with Sanson, Sanson's son, and the plaintiff went to Mitchell's, where he prepared a deed for the &ale of the farm. Wheeler brought up the matter of commission to Mitchell. Mitchell said it was a bit. stiff, but agreed to pay. Read the agreement to Mrs Mitchell, who thoroughly understood it. There was no disagreement.

By Mr Sellar: Everything Mitchell did Mrs Mitchell agreed to. Did not remember if Mitchell said anything to Mrs Mitchell about commission. A" deposit of £25 was paid, and the question was raised as to who should hold the cheque. Could not remember if Mrs Mitchell objected to Wheeler holding it. The vendor was to raise the first mortgage and pay off existing mortgages. He said to Mitchell he would have to pay the cost of the first mortgage. Understood he was acting for all parties. At this stage Mr Sellar said that the defence would be that it was not disclosed at the time of signing the agreement that his clients would have to pay off existing mortgages. As a matter of fact, that could not be done. He would bring evidence of misrepresentation on the part of Wheeler in stating it could be done. He was entitled to show that the agent had been guilty of misrepresentation. Mr Anderson, continuing, said the costs of raising a mortgage for £1,800 would be £27, which Mitchell agreed to pay. Understood Wheeler was actmo- for Mitchell. Wheeler had undertaken to arrange the sale of Sanson's mortgage. Wheeler said that if he could sell Sanson's mortgage, Mitchell would place the sale of .this farm in Wheeler's hands. Had made arrangements with Wheeler to sell Sanson's mortgage prior to the agreement to sell the farm. Found the cash himself to finance Sanson's mortgage. Wheeler agreed to pay witness half the commission he was getting from Mitchell. He was also, getting all legal business m connection with the transfer. In selling the mortgage he was acting for Sanson.

By Mr Weir: The mortgage had to be sold at less than face value, owing to its being a "second mortgage. J. Wheeler deposed that he considered Mr Mitchell the owner of the farm, but afterwards found that Mrs Mitchell was the owner. Mrs Mitchell was.introduced to witness as a land agent by Mr Mitchell. They both recognised witness as agent. Mrs Mitchell asked witness what the commission would be, and he told her about £112. Gave her particulars of comission. She said she was quite agreeable to nay the commission. Sanson and Mitchell were present. By Mr Sellar: Got instructions from Mrs Mitchell. Told Mrs Mitchell concerning one mortgage that he had to do with before. After what the Mitchells said to him. told them these mortgages could be lifted. Had negotiated with Mr Sellar's office concerning the payinn- off of one of the mortgages for £600; had thought it could be bought lor £200, but Mr Sellar's office replied that it could not be bought. After that he had an intimation from Mr Halliwell that it could be bought. Was prepared to swear that Mitchell did not come to Eltham on the matter. Ab to the commission, the witness said that Mr Anderson mentioned the matter to Mrs Mitchell, and she said it was a bit high, but agreed to it. Told the Mitchells that they would have to pay off existing mortgages and take a first mortgage for the three existing mortgag«s, and a second for the balance oi tne purchase money. Knew that before a first mortgage could be taken the three existing mortgages must be paid off.

Mr Sellar: And suppose Mitchell coulJ not pay them off, what would happen? Witness: I don't know: I suppose it would be Mitchell's funeral. Mr Sellars: And you were acting as Mitchell's agent. Witness: Yes; but I had nothing to do with the financing. Mr Sanson gave evidence as to what £11 place be*wee. n Wheeler and Mitchell as to commission. Wheeler told Mitehell that it would be 24 Der cent. Mitchell said he would pay that, and no more. Afterwards-Mr Mitchell said the farm belonged to Mrs Mitchell. They went to the house and saw Mrs Mitchell, who was told by her husband that they would have to pay a commission. Mrs Mitchell was told the amount of commission, and they both agreed to pay.

By Mr Sellar: The price was £30 per acre It was not reduced to £29 10s on account that no commission would be paid.

At the conclusion of the evidence for plaintiff the case was adjourned till next Court clay.