COMMISSION CLAIMED.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XV, Issue 883, 7 February 1907, Page 21

COMMISSION CLAIMED.

Further hearing of the claim for £BO commission by J. M. and J. Mowbray against W. Abbott, as executor of the estate of Mrs Catherine Jones, was continued before Mr C. C. Kettle, S.M., last Thursday. The amount was claimed as commission upon an alleged sale of the Kent.sh Hote,, Waiuku. Mr R. McV’eagh appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr Brookfield for the defendant. John Mowbray, one of the plaintiffs, said he was present when Mrs Jones told his brother to find a purchaser for the Waiuku Hotel. She mentioned £3OOO as the price of the lease, furniture and goodwill. Quest.oned by Mr Brookfield, wiiness said that the late Mr Jones had borrowed money from the Great Northern Brewery Co., of which witness was managing director. He agreed that it would be more satisfactory to himself if the new tenant was prepared to put himself in Jones’ shoes and take his beer from the Great Northern Brewery. Arcneiaus iliomas, licensee 01 che Criterion note., utanuhu, stateu that in IN Ov ember, : 1905, ne caned a. Mr Mowbray’s office to veil him that ii an note, was on his books for sa.e he would like to know. He received a telegram in December from Mr Mowbray, and m consequence went to Waiuku, where he saw Mrs Jones at the hotel. He offered £2500 for the property, apart from the bar stock, but Mrs Jones said she would not take less than £3OOO. When he reached Auckland on his way back to Thames he made an offer, through Mowbray, of £2750, and he was informed subsequently by wire that the price had been accepted. He went to Auckland so that the purchase cou.d be completed, and found that a Mr Schultz had bought the hotel. Cross-examined by Mr Brookfield, witness said he did not see Mrs Jones more than once, but it was generally understood that the price included everything but stock. Mr Brookfield submitted that the plaintiffs ought to be non-suited, because on Mr Mowbray’s evidence the contract was to pay him £lOO if he made a sale, whereas he was not the person who effected the sale. Mr Jones or Mrs Jones had not accepted the contract of Mr Thomas. His Worship remarked that so long as the agent had the purchaser bound so that he could be forced to make the purchase he had succeeded, and on the letters produced there was a contract. Mr Brookfield contended on behalf of the defendant that the p,aintiffs were not entitled to commission from Mrs Jones because they acted in the interests of Mr Thomas. Mr McVeagh (for the plaintiffs) said it was shown on the evidence that the contract was to find a purchaser, which was done. On the lowest ground his clients, having had their authority to sell revoked, were entitled to be recompensed for any expenditure they had undertaken. Evidence for the defence was then taken. Robert L. H. Biss, solicitor, said he acted professionally for Mr and Mrs Jones. On January 4th Mr Schultz came to him with the object of getting particulars of the lease held by Mr Jones. The lease was purchased on that date, and witness went to Mr Mowbray for the document. He was referred to Mr Mowbray’s solicitors. The contract with Schultz dropped through, but the hotel was sold to a Mr Molloy. William Abbott, executor of Mrs Jones’ estate, and defendant in the action, said that, although the Schultz transaction fell through, Thomas did not renew his offer. His Worship reserved his decision.