MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume L, Issue 15480, 11 December 1913, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

ARRANGING A LOAN.

CLAIM FOR WORK DONE.

A claim for £5 18s 9d for work dono and disbursements was brought by Messrs. Cooke and Smith, general agents (Mr. Towlo), against W. J. Morton, commission agent of Auckland (Mr. M. D. Mahonetf, at tho Magistrate's Court yesterday, when Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., presided.

In support of the claim, Cooke, a member of the plaintiff firm, said that in July last the defendant came to him and asked if he could arrange a loan of £1000 at 7 per cent, on a mortgage for £1700, which defendant held as executor. No length of duration for the loan was specified. After making several unsuccessful inquiries, witness got into communication with a firm of solicitors in Rotorua, who agreed to give tho loan at 8 per cent., on payment of a procuration fee "of 1 per cent. Tho defendant agreed to these terms, and the loan was arranged. When tho deed was handed over to the defendant it was found that the term of the loan was 2£ years. Tho defendant then said he wanted the loan for 4£ years, about which time the first mortgage would expire. The extra two years was eventually arranged, conditionally on defendant paying an extra £5 procuration fee, to which ho consented. When witness first undertook to obtain the loan it was agreed that defendant should pay him £5 and disbursements, but tho extension of tho term entailed a considerable amount of extra work, and witness eventually sent defendant a bill for £10. Defendant said he would pay no more than £5 and disbursements, and refused to entertain a suggestion that a compromise of £7 7s should be arranged. Subsequently witness wrote to tho defendant, agreeing to accept the £5, but had received no reply. Defendant had later expressed his intention of paying the money "in his own time." Tho defendant, in his evidence, said that at the outset ho had stipulated that tho length of tho term of the loan should be 4J years, and the delay in obtaining the two years' extension had cost him about £8. There had been no actual agreement as to what remuneration Cooke should receive and witness considered that he had been well paid by other commissions for what ho had done.

His Worship said that Cooke was cortainly entitled to remuneration for his work, and the fact that ho had received other commissions through the defendant had nothing to do with the present case Tho only question was how much was Cooko entitled to? The defendant had assessed the amount himself when he had offered to pay £5, and judgment would be .for the plaintiffs for that amount and costs.