SUPREME COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 12409, 29 August 1918, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SESSIONS. TO-DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. His Honor Mr Justice Herdimm presided at the Supremo Court this morning. CLAIM FOR COMMISSION. "William Allen Hopkins (Mr Hunter) proceeded 'against Jesse James Hills <Mr Alpors, with him Mr Twyneham), of Palmerston North, to recover £l7B los for work done and journeys and attendance carried out. at the request of defendant, in. connection with the sale to Arthur J. Horwoll, farmer, of Hororata, of a property of defendant’s at Wanganui; and to recover £312 3s 9d in a similar connection with the sale to Freda "Worthington Batty, of a property of the defendant’s at Stratford.

In outlining. the case for plaintiff, Mr Hunter said that plaintiff was a well-known Christchurch land agent, and defendant was described as a settler, but was also a big land dealer. T wo years ago Hills extended his operations to the South Island, and placed certain properties with plaintiff, mentioning that exchanges could form part of deals. In due course a propcrtly of defendant’s at Wanganui was sole! to Horwell, whoso farm at Hororata was included as an exchange, and the Stratford property was sold to BaUv. property of Batty’s in Chester Street, Christchurch, being included in the exchange The question of commission depended upon authorisation. ft was claimed that one Paul Neilson, who was concerned in' the r.ego'-iations on behalf of Hills, was Hills’s clerk. Hills was the defendant in an action of a similar character— Austin y. Hills (in which judgment went in. favour of the plaintiff)—in which .he claimed that as the authorisation was signed by Neilson and not by Hills, ho (Hills) was not responsible. It was clear in the present case that Neilson conducted Hills’s correspondence and that he was propcrlv authorised to act for Hills. Mr Hunter explained details of the transactions and then called evidence.

Cyril Kennedy White, formerly in charge of plaintiff's land department, gave evidence as to Hill’s visit to plaintiff's office in August, 1916, and placing about forty properties with the firm for sale or exchange. Witness wont through the list and suggested an exchange of the Stratford property with Hatty's property in Chester Street. Hills seemed favourable and signed the authorisation card. Hills said that if a sale took place the commission would be arranged with his clerk, Paul Neilson. Hills wanted to alter tho authorisation card to that effect and witness referred him .to Hopkins. The card was altered accordingly. Batty’s property was then inspected and subsequently a sale note wan prepared. Hills agreed to pay commission. Witness also explained the transaction in connection with Horwell’s purchase of Hills’s Wanganui property, and Hills’s taking the Hororata property in exchange. His Honor: Is it disputed that there were contracts f

Air Alpers: There was no contract so far us Bat-tv was concerned.

Witness, continuing, said that ho met Hills in Hereford Street subsequently and asked him when he intended to pay the commission. Hills replied that h e declined to pay two com* missions.

To Air Alpers: Witness was aware that the authorisation card in the Batty transaction was missing, but he was certain that Hills had signed it. Wililam Allen Hopkins, plaintiff, stated that Hills visited his office in August, 1916, and placed certain properties with him, to be sold or exchanged. The matter of commission was not mentioned. Witness referred Hills to White, who managed witness’s land department, and ho (White) carried on the business with Hills. Witness received £133 Horn Batty as commission for tho exchange of liis Christchurch property. White took Hills to tho Hororata property, which Hills agreed to acquire, Honvell taking Hills’s Wanganui property. Witness ha<l trouble with Hills in ’getting him to complete the deal. There was a long delay. Witness' explained details of tho transaction and as to commission rates.

To Mr Alp crs: Witness had not increased his commission charge in the Honvcll transaction from £10!) to £l7B as the result of a judgment in a To Kuiti land case, hut because of his discovery as to rates ruling in different districts and his rights according fo custom. The £133 received from Battv was the only money witness had received in connection with the series of transactions.

His Honor. "Why did you not receive commission from HorwellP

Witness: Because Horwell took the uanganui property on mortgages and was sorry he‘had done so. ’ It_ was agreed to toko the further hoarmg of the case at 10.30 a.m. on the following day.