SALE OF A COALFIELD.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18762, 16 July 1924, Page 11

SALE OF A COALFIELD.

CLAIM FOR COMMISSION.

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT.

A claim for £206 ss, land agent's commission, alleged to be due, was made by J. P. McPhail (Mr. Finlay, instructed by Messrs. Taylor and Thompson), against R. D. Campbell (Mr. A H. Johnutone), at the Supreme Court yesterday, before Mr. Justice Stringer.

Plaintiff set out that he had been instrumental in effecting the sale of a coalfield at Ohara on behalf of defendant to C. G. Mclndoe and E. S. Whyte. Defendant agreed to pay a commission of £490 on condition that the property was sold before January, 1923. Plaintiff later reduced the commission to £300, upon the same conditions, and agreed to accept a regular land agent's commission if a sale was effected after January.

J. P. McPhail stated in evidence that defendant had been very anxious to dispose of the property. A prospective purchaser, H. P. Mortensen, had taken an option over the property on behalf of his sister, but this had lapsed. Messrs. Whyte and Mclndoe obtained an option, and eventually completed purchase. Plaintiff had supplied information to Mortensen, who he considered was acting in the capacity of agent for Mclndoe and Whyte. Both defendant and Mortensen were in constant communication with plaintiff. Mr. Johnstone suggested that Mortensen had exercised his own option, and was endeavouring to sell to Mclndoe and Whyte on his own behalf. Plaintiff denied he agreed to charge £490 commission, and later refund £190 to defendant because the sum was a charge on the mortgagor of defendant's property. The defence was that McPhail had not been resnonsible for the sale of the property, ft was admitted by plaintiff that he had not directly negotiated with the purchasers. Defendant maintained that Mortensen had represented he wa3 the vendor. Evidence was given to the effect that Mortensen had not disclosed that he was acting for McPhail when negotiating with the purchasers. His Honor found that Mortensen had Earticipated in the deal as a principal and ad not negotiated in the interest of either party. Plaintiff had not b&en instrumental in bringing about the sale. Judgment was for defendant.