Feilding Land Agent’s Claim

Manawatu Times, Volume 62, Issue 168, 17 July 1937, Page 3

Feilding Land Agent’s Claim

FURTHER EVIDENCE HEARD. Further evidence was heard in the Feilding Magistrate’s Court oh Thursday of the action brought by Victor Emanuel Smith, land agent, Feilding, against Edmund Hugh Haythorne and Edward Curtis Haythorne, farmers of Kimbolton, for the recovery of £142 17s Gd, as commission in respect of the sale of a farm property. Mr. R. M. Watson, S.M., was on the bench and Mr. J. Graham appeared for the plaintiff, while Mr. D. C. Cullinane represented the defendants. J ! After hearing the evidence of Ed- , mund Haythorne, tiie hearing was adjourned until August 3. Plan tiff, in his statement of claim,* said that in or about March, 1936, dcfendants requested him to find a pur- ' chaser for the estate and interest of u Edmund Haythorne in tho property, a and agreed to pay plaintiff commission ° lat the rate of 2J per cent. Plaintiff had found a purchaser, but defendants * had neglected to pay tho commission ugreed upon. Mr. Cullinane submitted that the pro- a perty was first quoted by the agent Richardson, and Maurice (the purchaser) had thought that ho could buy the property cheaper if he dealt through Richardson. Plaintiff had thrust himself into the deal. The Magistrate pointed out that J plaintiff must have had justification J for entering into tho negotiations. F Maurice must have seen plaintiff. Mr. Cullinane said that plaintiff had c upset the deal; he had not brought * about the sale of tho property, and s served no useful purpose. Richardson j had been given tho sole agency of the property for 2J months from December 13, 1935. Edmund Haythorne gave evidence that in 1935 his son’s health had broken down and that was the reason for negotiating a sale oi the property. About December, 1935, he knew his son * had given authority in writing to iand agents at Kimbolton to sell tho property for £l2 10s ].er acre. Ho had told Richardson that he could put the property iu the hands of sub-agents, 1 but ho wanted Rieharason to sell tho | ' ' property. Witness knew that Maurice had bought tho farm. Not 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, 1 1936, and prior to that date ho was l certain that he had not had any com- i : munication with plaintiff regarding the , ! sale of the farm. He had received further letters from plaintiff and later | ho and his son had called on plaintiff, 3 who had spoken ot his prospective buyer as his client, and had not disclosed tho name. Later plaintiff and Maurice had called at tho Haythornes’ home. He could not say if he had r heard Maurice’s name mentioned by plaintiff prior to that interview, but it • might have been mentioned in an 3 earlier letter received from plaintiff. ; • On April 21 witness had written to . plaintiff withdrawing the property from 1 sale meanwhile. On April 22 plaintiff y had written to him stating that it was 3 unbusinesslike to withdraw from sale a 3 property after Maurice had inspected it s in company with plaintiff. Referring s to his interview with plaintiff and Maurice at his home, witness said he s had asked plaintiff what his position 2 was, as Maurice had already been menj tioned to him by Richardson. Plaintiff I had replied that Richardson had not g introduced Maurice to nim (Haythorne;. Plaintiff had told witness that it was the agent who completed tho sale that was entitled to tho commission. Plain- I tiff had agreed, in conversation, that it wa. “the first horse past tho post that' o got tho stake.’’ Smith had refused to ( act in conjunction with Richardson. 0 Plaintiff had then asked witness if ho would take £ll an acre. This witness _ refused, and had reduced the reservo of £l2 10s to £l2. Plaintiff had made y no effort to get Maurice to give the price asked by witness. Witness ad- | initted tuat plaintiff had called again r to see him in or oefore May, 1936. Later, plaintiff had admitted that the .. property was worth £l2 an acre, but iiau. stated that he could not get his y client Maurice to offer that much. Plaintiff had offered £ll and gave wit- ‘ y ness till tho following {Saturday evening to accept or refuse the offer. Wit-! ness had told plaintiff that if ho * .. (Smith; bad not sold tho farm at wit- j ness" price by 8 p.rn. on the {Saturday i he would be done with him. The last : communication from plaintiff was re- , i e eeived on May 5. Witness had not j seen or had communication from him ' [ e after that date until after the pro- . perty had been sold.

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 after tho agreement had been signed plaintiff had telephoned and offered £ll ss. Defendant had said: “No, 1 won’t. Tho place is sold.’’ Smith had said: “1 wonder who did it.’’ Later the same evening plaintiff rang again and demanded commission. Cross-examined by Mr. Graham, witness agreed that ho nad only had one conversation with his sou in plaintiff’s office and it was then that he told plaintiff tho place was for sale and gave him particular of tho property. Witness at that interview had told plaintiff that Kichardson was tho sole agent. Witness denied that ho 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.