A CLAIM FOR COMMISSION.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXIX, Issue 94, 10 June 1911, Page 5

A CLAIM FOR COMMISSION.

o A COMPLICATED CASE. A “THREE-HANDED DEAL.” At the Magistrate’s Court yestcr day, Kemp and Sawlo (Mr. Anderson) sued Wm. J. Robinson (Mr J. L Weir, Eltham) for £GO, commissioi on the sale of a property. Frederick William Romp, land and commission agent, gave evidence thai the deal in question was first men tioned in August, 1910. Defer.dan rang up from Eltham asking that he should bo met at the Stratford rail way station. Defendant went, ovc? to the office, where ho had a conversation with witness and Sawle. Do fendant said he had withdrawn hi; property from the hands of J Hodge, another agent. Ho also men tioned that he' had spoken of his pro pert} 7 to Kenny, asking witness tc go to Hamilton to see him. He said lie did not wish to beat the firm foi commission. Defendant said Hodge did not regard the property as wcrtl what was asked for it, while he know witness could convince Kenny that the property was worth the money. Witness went to Hamilton, saw Ken ny, and took him over the property Ronny said that in all probability he would take the farm. Kenny and witness later on returned to Tara naki. The day after arriving back witness and Sawlo drove down to the farm of Kenny’s father on Cheat Road. Kenny said he would deal at the £5 mentioned in the first place by Robinson. Robinson was next visited and ho said he would not give more than £4 15s. They endeavoured to convince Robinson to pay £5 but lie refused. They went back tc Kenny, who after a good deal of persuasion decided to deal at £4 15s

- Kenny and witness arrived back ir (Taranaki on a 'Saturday, the parties were interviewed on Sunday, and the deeds of exchange wore drawn up on Monday. ' Witness had been a land agent for some years and had car ried out many exchanges. Most ol the business in Taranaki was by exchange. In exchanges 2 V per cent was charged on each deal—two commissions ,if there wore two exchanges, or three if there were three exchanges. If there wore a number ol agents in an exchange the usual thing was to divide the commission among them. Some time after the deal was completed Robinson stated tc witness that he would not pay corn mission. This was the first witness had heard of the matter. .By spa cial arrangement no commission war. charged Kenny. By Mr Weir: During the first conversation with Robinson, Mr Kemp of Kemp and Perry, might have been present. Witness could not say win Robinson said ho did net desire ti beat the firm for its commission, Ii was not a fact that defendant said he intended to pay no commission. Witness did not often to go to Hamilton r —he was asked to go. Robinsor t was particularly anxious to get rk of his property. At the nicotine when the deal was fixed up witness thought there was no mention o. commission- It was not usual tc Sress for commission light away. His rm had on their books commission; which had been owing for two years It was two months after the comp-..'', tion of the deal before a claim w.u made on Robinson. . Hodge nevei approached witness for a share of tin commission. It was a usual thing to get a signed authority to sell pro perties, but a great many were sole without written authority. Then was no authority in the present case There was a special agreement be tween his firm and Kemp and Perry, the rate being above, the ordinary rate. Edward Jackson, lane agent, saie he had had over’three _ years’ experience in land transactions. Unless a special arrangement was madi, commission I was charged to both pai ties to an exchange. He always Uked to get written authority to sell. The S.M. said tliat there were ;. large number of commission cases ir. the country, but. most of them would never come to (Joint if .the mattei had been put in writing. Mr. Anaerson : It you knew a property very well, ana tno owner saio no wanted t.o sell it, would you dcsi.it to take particulars of the property, and get u written authority to sell: Witness; No; 1 would not think it necessary. By Mr. Weir: If there was no written authority to self ho would' make special mention of the terms of commission. Mr. Anderson: That is not a general custom —it is just this witness’ manner of doing business. , Reginald fciawia said nobody else was M present when Robinson interviewed - himself and Kemp. The present occasion was tlie first on which the firm had had to sue for commission. Mr.' SVeir submitted that there was no contract between Robinson arc Kemp and Sawle for the sale of Robertson’s Eltham property. He therefore claimed a nonsuit, out the S.J.M. declined to grant it. . William James Robinson, lately 7 ol Eltham, and now of Omona, doienclant, said-he put his Eltham business in the hands of Hodge for sale. Alto withdrawing it from Hodge, witness met Kenny in Eltham. Kenny wanton witness to buy Ins section at Omona. Witness said no did not want to buy

it so long as lie lukl hi& carrying business. Witness asked Kenny to have a look at tne To Aroha property, an f » if he would take it, witness would take the Omoua properly, provided Kemp and Perry rook witness’ carrying business, Witness said lie would not pay any commission on such a deal, and Kenny said lie would not pay commission either. Witness war told that Korun, of Kemp and Perry, was in Stratford. He wired up U “Kemp, Stratford,” and was met by | Kemp, of Kemp and Sawlo iVitmus; asked if Kemp’s brother waj lev ■ and Kemp said he wan up ; & Mu office at that time. Kemp suggested that they should walk alo-.g to tut office. When the office was readied it was found that John Kemp (Kemp and Perry) was not in the office. Saule was sent out and came back later on with John Kemp. Witness explained to the three men what he desired to do. John Kemp took down details of the deal, saying it seemed to be a good idea. While they were all present witness said there would be no commission between Kenny and he On the following day John Kemp drove doyrn to Kith am and inspected the carrying plant. Witness said, at the meeting in Stratford, that the deal was between Kenny and ho, Kemp and Sawlo merely selling John Kemp’s property. Ho said there would be no deal if Kemp and Sawlo looked for commission. Fred Kemp said ho did not look for any. When the deal was completed nothing was ■ said about commission. At the end oi a month the two Kemps and Pen . came down to Elth'am to take over the carrying business. In the mcautiuK witness had hoard that Hodge had been grumbling because Kemp and Sawlo wore alleged to be making -975(' out of the three deals. .Mr. Kemp said ho wished the firm was retting that much. Witness • reminded Kemp about t’v arrangement that neither be nor ’Kenny should pay commission. Kemp replying that he remembered the arrangement. By Mr. Anderson: So far as be

.;uld remember he ULgrapAal 1c . er.'p at Stratford, and did not tcl> /;cne to Kemp and Sawle. .if nothing ;ad boon said about commission u it'oss would have expected to have paid commission. Mr Wcii put iu a copy of ibe evidence of dames Kenny, taken on commission at To ’Aroha. Kenny said that right through the negotiations io heard nothing about commission. There had never been any claim on him for commission. In mentioning tlie exchange, defendant said there would bo no agent’s commission to pay—it would be a straight-out deal jotween defendant and witness. Mr 'Weir, addressing the Court, mid the defence was that Kemp and daw.lc entered the deal for the purpose of selling the To Aroha property; :hat Kenny and Robinson had ar•anged a sale before seeing Kemp and lawlo; that the fact of this arrangenent made a deal possible, Kemp and Perry having previously offered to take Robinson’s business, the deal bcvng declined because of failure to igroe about price. Robinson was not i uxious to deal with one Kemp or the /ther—lie know both were empowered to sell it. Counsel thought that in die present case Kemp and Sawlo had lone nothing beyond what could 1)0 egarded as an act for the purpose f the sale of the To Aroha property, •'or which they were drawing commission.

The S.M. said he would reserve bidgmeut. Ho did not know of any previous cases regarding commission in i •‘throe-cornered deal,” and he would desire to go carefully into the matter.