AGENTS’ COMMISSION.

Waipa Post, Volume XII, Issue 944, 20 May 1920, Page 5

AGENTS’ COMMISSION.

A CLAM FOR £l2B 10s.

PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENCE IMPEACHED.

9 BENCH MAKES COMMENT

Judgment in the case of Sydney Pratt and Laurie Bayly, land agents, v. John Arthur James a claim for £l2B 10s, alleged commission for the sale of a farm at Paterangi comprising acres, was given by Mr E. W. Burton, S.M. in the Te Awamutu Magistrate’s Court on -Tuesday. The plaintiffs’ case had been heard originally on 9th December last, when defendant’s counsel had moved for a nonsuit on various grounds. In his judgment Mr Burton states that the four questions relevant to the case were: Was the farm which plaintiffs, purported as agents for the defendant to sell to Hallahan, the property of defendant or his wife? Did the defendant represent such farm as his property? Did the defendant sign an authority to sell the farm as sworn in evidence by Pratt, describing himself as vendor? If the evidence of Pratt as to the signing of the “authority to sell” form has to be rejected, and the evidence of defendant and his witness accepted as proof that plaintiffs, throughout the transaction, knew the farm to he the property of Mrs James, does defendant’s letter to plaintiffs dated 29th November, 1918, bind him personally to pay the commission, notwithstanding the words, “ on my wife’s account we have now decided to offer this farm for sale. I am sending details. Defendant wrote to Pratt on 29th November, “ Referring to my letter of 24th September, on my wife’s account \Ve have now decided to offer this farm for sale. I am sending details. No other agent has yet been informed and of course you will understand he who sells ■ receives the commission.” In the light of evidence “ this farm ” must he taken to mean “my wife’s farm.” Defendant did not sign as his wife’s agent. As to the first point, the evidence stands uncontradicted that the farm was on 29th November, and from the very.inception of the matter between the parties, the property of Mrs James. The second question requires special notice. Pratt makes his first meeting with defendant at the farm, and, in consequence of that interview, Pratt, with Begg, preceded defendant to the farm. According to Pratt’s version of the visit of Begg and himself to the farm, Pratt does not see James, and his business was transacted with Mrs James as owner of the farm. Pratt represents himself as asking defendant, “ Will you quote your farm?” and defendant as replying, “ I think I will. But I’ll consult my wife. She has helped me to make the farm, to do the work, and I would not do anything without consulting her,” thereby making defendant father an utterly false statement, since, so far from defendant’s wife having played the minor part of helping to make the farm, by the long process of work and labour thereon, she had in fact only two years ago acquired it, by the shorter process of purchasing it with her own money, in her own name, the money having Seen left her by her mother. I have no reasonable doubt in concluding from the evidence that defendant had no end to gain by saying anything so untrue and unjust towards his wife, and that he did not say so. This statement now under criticism '•appears to me to he, in the conflict of evidence which exists, one of the most valuable tests in determining* which side the truth lies in regard to the matters in controversy. “ Holding therefore,” continues Mr Burton, “ that this opinion is correct; I am compelled to reject the, evidence of Pratt wherever it conflicts with the defendant, his wife, and another. Had this test not presented itself, I should nevertheless have been obliged to hold that the weight and consistency of evidence of these three witnesses quite overbore the testimony of Pratt. I hold, then, that Pratt was fully aware Mrs James owned the farm. As far as the ‘ authority to sell ’ form goes, I am compelled to say that defendant did neither receive nor sign such a form. The witness called for the plaintiffs to prove that she had transcribed the authority forms into the pocket books of the plaintiffs is of no use, as the girl did not enter plaintiffs’ employment until March, 1919. Pratt says the las time he had the authority form was on the occasion of his driving defendant, his wife, and her father home. This was undoubtedly on Ist February, 1920. Consequently the witness could not have copied in March a document that Pratt had not seen on the preceding Ist of February. I must point out seriously that the evidence of plaintiff Pratt stands impeached on matters most material to the issues before the Court. I deeply regret having to pass these censures on the evidence of Pratt, but I should be failing in my duty if I did not.” After citing a good deal of law on the subject, judgment was entered for defendant, with costs. His Worship stated that plaintiffs could appeal if they so desired.