RESERVED JUDGMENT GIVEN.

King Country Chronicle, Volume XXII, Issue 2409, 9 April 1927, Page 5

RESERVED JUDGMENT GIVEN.

IN COMMISSION CLAIM. LOCAL LAND DEAL. Reserved judgment was given by the magistrate, Mr. R. M. Watson, S.M., this week in a claim case in which Sarah Ann Stewart (plaintiff), land agent, of Te Kuiti, claimed from J. E. Hamill (defendant), of Taihape, the sum of £47 10s, which she alleged was due to her as commission on the sale of a property situate at the corner of King and Taupiri Streets, which had been purchased by the Waitomo Power Board. In giving judgment for the defendant, the magistrate held that in November, 1925, the plaintiff had submitted the property in question to the Waitomo Power Board without the defendant’s authority. Defendant did, however, authorise the sale in December, 1925, by a letter and the offer was ultimately rejected by the Board with other sections offered. Plaintiff did not until July, 1926, notify defendant that she had submitted the property to anyone. About the month of March, 1926, defendant was in Te Kuiti and it was at the suggestion of one, Samuel Craig, that defendant had a conversation with John Kiernan, secretarymanager of the Waitomo Power Board, about the property. Mr. Kiernan’s evidence showed that defendant’s first intimation to him of the selling of the property was on the occasion of the conversation referred, to. On July 29, he had written to 'Mrs. Stewart informing her that the Board had decided to negotiate with Mr. Hamill. Mr. Kiernan had considered that Mr. Hamill had himself influenced the sale of the property. When Mr. Kiernan had spoken to Hamill in March, 1926, he did not recollect that Mrs. Stewart had offered the section, as there had up to that time been so many offers generally, and when defendant offered the section on December 8, 1925. he did not consider that the Board wanted a section.

On July 8, 1926, the Board, having received many offers of land, determined in Mr. Kiernan’s words: “to wipe out all previous offers and start afresh.” Accordingly the Board advertised for fresh written offers and notified plaintiff and defendant and others who had submitted properties to that effect. Both plaintiff and defendant then submitted the property among others to the Board. The first notification defendant had of plaintiff’s submission of the property to the Board was a letter from plaintiff to defendant at Taihape, dated July 16, 1926, enclosing . a newspaper cutting stating that the Board had decided to obtain an obtion over the property. On July 29, 1926, the Board notified plaintiff that it was negotiating with defendant, and on August 21, 1926, defendant wrote to plaintiff stating that he had already offered the property to the Boai'd, and a sale was subsequently concluded between Mr. Hamill and the Board. If Mrs. Stewart in 1925 had communicated the offer to defendant of his property to the Board, it might be that she could have recovered her commission. But this she did not do.

. The facts did not contain any suggestion that the Board had gone behind plaintiff’s back, being quite free to deal with anyone who approached it. Judgment was given for defendant, with witnesses’ expenses and solicitor’s fees.