FARMER AND LAND AGENT.

Timaru Herald, Volume CV, Issue 16126, 22 November 1916, Page 5

FARMER AND LAND AGENT.

SAldi OF FATtM IN GEIUBDINE DLSTIUCT. CLAIM OF j£2oo FOR AN OPTION. At the Supreme Court in Christ-cliui-uh ou lUonuay, be-ore Mr justite tt.ui, Jiediey V lca.rs Uren, of Cnristehurcii, i.autt agent, and Ucorgc Frederick \ ere and Frederick Lyon Easltiadiug as Vnrc ana Eastgate, land agents, Chrklchureii (Mr J. J. Bengali;, cliiiiiiied from William S. Maslin, ol Geialdine, laimer (Mr S. (J. Kaymond, K.C., with him Mr Johnston) the siiin of £2OO, with intoiest thereon from April 16, 1916, at the lata o: 6 per cent., and •certain specific costs, ,ii consideration of plaintiffs caii'ielliiig their right to act as sole' agents for defendant for the purpose of selling a farm at L\neo?n ; the property o' defendant. Briefly stated the facts of the case as stated for the defendant were as follows:—On March 26 last the plaintiffs submitted an offer from Munro Smith to exchange his farm of 170 acres at Lincoln, at £SO per acre, for Muslin's farm of 1517 acres at .Beautiful Valley, valued at £lO 10s per aero. Maslin objected to the high price put on Smith's land, and would not agree to take, ib at the price. The piuiu litis assured him that the .priee was low, and guaranteed that he (Muslin) hood never enter into possession of it if he agreed to the ; exchange and gave them the sale of Smith'.s land. And they offered to take as their commission the price they would obtain for the property in excess of the £SO per acre. Maslin concluded the sale and exchange on these terms, ant! gave instructions to this effect. Smith subsequently saw Maslin with a view to retaining his (Smith's) property owing to family reasons, and offered to purchase Maslin's farm straight out for cash. Maslin went to Christehnreh and saw TJi'en and Co. to ascertain whether they had done anything with Smith's property, and told them that he was about to sell his Beautiful Yaile,y property straight out without any exchange. To this, Uren and Co., raised no objection. Next morning Smith and his brothers waited on Maslin and bought the latter's farm for cash. Messrs Raymond and Stringer was acting for the Smiths, and on going into their office Mr Stringer advised the Smiths not to go on with the purchase owing to a claim on the property by Uren and Co., and said that Maslin'would require to get this settled before the Smiths concluded the purchase. 'Maslin saw Uren and Co., who said they had got an option over the property which Maslin could not revoke. Th7>- demanded £30!) and sa.ld that unless tTiey were paid this amount they would lodge a caveat to prevvent the property bsing doalt with. As Maslin was desirous of concluding the business w r ith the Smiths he signed a letter agreeing to s c,ive Uren and Co., £2OO for their alleged option over the Smith's property. The whole case turned on this letter., Uren and Co. were paid the full commission on the "sale,; of the Beautiful Valley property; and also on the Lincol 1 !! property from Smith to Maslin.

Mr Dougall, in outlining the case for plaintiffs, said it was admitted that letters authorising agency had passed between the parties, a.nd,oJaimpd that the original document in'that respect was irrevocable, but that, 1 '" iri'Vsr.ch a contingency, .plaintiffs were entitled to recompense for their '.abbur. •'.'.' Mr Raymond claimed that no consideration was to be given for the alleged cancellation. If it were contended that there was misrepresentation in the document of authority, it would be shown that the error was of an innocent nature, and was not binding on the parties. Mas!in had sold the property himseJf,- as he had a right to do and there was no breach" of agency. Plaintiffs had not sold the property, had not been put to any. expense, arid he-would show, if it were necessary,, that plaintiffs' gains in the transaction were, to depend upon profits so far as they were concerned. ♦ Hedley Vicars . "Uren, land/. agent, C'brisf'church, stated that lie and Vere and Eastgate acted in connection with the exchange of an estate of 150 acres at Lincoln. Witness acted foi-.'W. S. Maslin and Vere and Eastgate for Munro Smith. Maslin-and Smith had placed the matter in theu- hands, and on March <26 witness received an authority as agent tor Maslin. Witness and Estgate went to Lincoln, and witness, as agent ior Maslin, offered the property to Smith at £?is per acre. The transaction was not concaided, but plaintiffs'had-done their best in the matter and had a prospective client when Mas-lji sold. Maslin had offered £2OO as a settlementj but had repudiated. The dependent, William , Stephen Maslin, stated that ho'had placed his farm in Beautiful Valley, in Uren's hands for sale. Witness met Eastgate at Uren's office, and Munro Smith's property at Lincoln was mentioned in a suggested exchange transaction. Eastgate had writtetito him, stating that if he. could make the deal ho could guarantee to sell Smith's property. for him at £SO per acre not. The arrangements broke down, and witness considered that Uren was only an agent, and had no claim unless ho was concerned in selling the property. Mo had offered to purchose Urcu's option to sell, so that he could effect a deal himself, but plaint.ffs had nothing to do with the sale. Witness had had' experience ui land deals, but not in the exchange form which lie was drawn into in this transaction. He had no idea of the pecul.ar conditions that had arisen, and did net anticipate "falling in'' over anything, as he had considered he was dealing with straight men. Witness was cross-examined at length by Mr DougalL Hedley V. Uren (re-called) gave further cv.dence ' as to certain conversations. Frederick Lyon Eastgate, land agent, also gave evidence as to Maslin coming to his .office, and as to certain conversations that took place between plaintiffs and defendant. Mr Raymond addressed the Court on the- question of credibility c-f evidence as between the p'aintiffs' statements and those of defendant, which, said Mr Raymond, had documentary support. His Honour said that on the question of credibility the evidence cf Maslin was more likoly to be right. Maslin had evidently submitted to an unjust demand made by plaintiffs in order that he could dispose of the property to Smith within a certain period named by Smith, or lose the chance of sale. Defendant also appeared to believe that plaintiffs had threatened to place a. caveat on the property which ho (Muslin wished to sel'. Mr Raymond submitted that Masl'in was, by his offer, buying an option in order to prevent caveat being placed 1 on the tit.io. Pliantiffs had endeavoured to block Maslin's sale and had no right to threaten to place a caveat on the property. Maslin, hercfore had said lie would give £2OO without consideration. Plaintiffs had set up an illegal claim. Plaintiffs were land agents, and as such they were not entitled to anything unless they effected a sale. Hr would ask: What had p'aintiffs to give, for this £200? Nothing hut a scrap of paper, not of the class th.it counted for so much, but. in the very much reduced oircmiistanccs, n scrap of paper containing no substance what

ever. It was not until after Maslin had notified plaintiffs that he was selling the property to Smith that plaintiffs had suggested that they had a cvient, thus endeavouring to hold defendant and block his sale. : Mr Douga.ll contented for the plaintiffs that defendant had never been influenced in any way, that he was ■thoroughly conversant with tho law, and was responsible for the arrangements he had entered into, which were of a straight-out nature. Maslin had made an offer to pay £2OO lor a consideration,, and he was legally liable in consequence of his own action. His Honour said he would take time to consider the matter, and reserved his decision.