MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 193, 16 July 1937, Page 4

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

LAND AGENT’S CLAIM

The case was continued in the Magistrate’s Court, yesterday, in which Victor E. Smith, land agent, of Feilding, proceeded against Edmund Hugh Haythorne and Edward Curtis Haythorne, farmers, of Kimbolton, claiming £142 17s 9d as commission in respect of a sale of a farm property. The case was part heard on July 7.

Plaintiff, in liis statement of claim, said that in or about March, 1936, defendants requested him to find a purchaser for the estate and interest of Edmund Haythorne in the property, and agreed to pay plaintiff commission at the rate of 2£ per cent. Plaintiff Kid found a purchaser, but defendants had neglected to pay the commission agreed upon. Mr John Graham appeared for plaintiff and Messrs D. C. Cull inane and P. C. Miles for defendants.

Mr Cullina.ne submitted tliat the property was first quoted by the agent i Itichardson, and Maurice (the pur-1 chaser) had thought that he could buy the property cheaper if ho dealt through Richardson. Plaintiff had thrust himself into the deal. The Magistrate pointed out that plaintiff must have had justification for entering into the negotiations. Maurice must have seen plaintiff. Mr Cullinane said that plaintiff had upset the deal; he had not brought about the sale of the property, and served no useful purpose. Richardson had been given the eole agency of the property for months from December 13, 1935. Mr Haythorne, 6enr., gave evidence that in 1935 his son’s health had broken down and that was the reason for negotiating a sale of the property. About December, 1935, he knew his son had given authority in writing to land agents at lvimbolton to soil the property for £l2 10s per acre. He had told Richardson that he could put the property in the hands of subagents, but he wanted Richardson to sell the property. 'Witness knew that Maurice had bought the farm. Mot long after the property had been placed in Richardson’s hands he had heard about Maurice. The first correspondence from plaintiff had been received in January, 1936, and prior to that date he was certain that he had not had any communication with plaintiff regarding the sale of the farm. He had received further letters from plaintiff and later lie and his son had called on plaintiff, who had spoken of his prospective buver as his client, and had pot disclosed the name. Later plaintiff and Maurice had called at the Haythornes’s home. He could not say if he had heard Maurice’s name mentioned by plaintiff prior to that interview, but it might have been mentioned m an earlier letter received from plaintiff. On April 21 witness had written to plaintiff withdrawing the property from sale meanwhile. On April 22 plaintiff had written to him stating that it was unbusinesslike to withdraw from sale a property after Maurice had inspected it in company with plaintiff. Referring to his interview /with plaintiff and Maurice at lus home, witness said ho had asked plain-1 tiff what his position was, as Maurice had already been mentioned to him by Itichardson. Plaintiff ha.d replied that Richardson had not introduced Maurice to him (Haythorne). Plaintiff had told witness that it was the agent who completed the ..sale that was . entitled to the commission. Plaintiff had agreed, in conversation, fliat it was ‘ the first horse past the post that got the stake ” Smith had refused to act in conjunction with Itichardson. Plaintiff hail then asked witness if he would

take £ll an acre. This witness refused, and had reduced the reserve of £l2 10s to £l2. Plaintiff had made no effort- to get Maurice to give the price asked by witness. Witness admitted that plaintiff had called again to see him in or before May, 1936. Later, plaintiff had admitted that the property was worth £l2 per acre, but iiad stated that he could not get hi 6 client Maurice to offer that much. Plaintiff had offered £ll and gave witness till the following Saturday evening to accept or refuse the offer. Witness had told plaintiff that if he (Smith) had not sold the fa.rm at witness’s price by 8 p.m. on the Saturday he would be done with him. The last communication from plaintiff was received on May 5. Witness had not seen or had communication with him after that date until after the property had beensold. Continuing after the luncheon adjournment, witness said Maurice had made an offer to defendant of £ll 10s which had been accepted. Witness had telephoned Richardson and told him (as agent) that Maurice had offered £ll 10s and Richardson had told witness to send Maurice to him. On May 25 an agreement had been signed. A few days nfter the agreement had been signed plaintiff lind telephoned and offered £ll ss. Defendant had said: “No, I won’t. The place is sold.” Smith had said, “I wonder who did it.” Later the same evening plaintiff rang again and demanded commission.

Cross-examined by Mr Graham, witness agreed that lie had only had one conversation with his son in plaintiff’s office and it was then that he told plaintiff the place was for sale and gave him particulars of the property. Witness at that interview had told plaintiff that Richardson was the sole agent. Witness denied that he had given Smith direct authority to sell. He admitted that Smith had written numerous letters asking him to give authority to sell. Witness denied that Maurice had said to him that Smith had done all the work.

At this stage the Court adjourned until August 3.