JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XV, Issue 884, 14 February 1907, Page 21

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT.

Judgment was given by Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., last week in the case in which J. M. and J. Mowbray sued Wm. Abbot, executor in the will of Katherine Jones (deceased), for £BO, commission on the sale of the Kentish Hotel, Waiuku.

His Worship said that the claim was for services alleged to have been rendered on behalf of Mrs. Jones, since deceased. Plaintiffs alleged that on December 11, 1905, they were instructed to sell the hotel by Mrs. Jones on behalf of her husband. The agents took along a Mr. Thomas, and were promised a commission of £lOO if they sold the hotel for £3OOO. On the following day Mr. Jones died, and the instructions were renewed by Mrs Jones. The hotel was subsequently sold on January 6, 1906, to a Mr. Schultze by Mrs. Jones and Mr. Abbott for £3150. Plaintiff alleged that before the sale to Mr. Schultze they had effected a sale to Mr. Thomas, and the decision of the case rested on the question of whether they still had authority to sell. In his opinion events showed conclusively that their authority to sell the hotel was revoked on January 5, the day before they contended the sale to Mr. John Thomas was effected. Mr Mowbray admitted that Mr. Biss, solicitor for Mrs. Jones, had a conversation with him on January 5, in which reference was made to the sale, Mr. Biss stating that he informed Mr. Mowbray that the hotel had been sold. The authority to the agent to sell could be revoked at any time, provided it were done in a bona fide manner, without the object of preventing them earning their commission, or carrying out their duties. He was satisfied that the sale to Mr. Schultze was bona fide. Mr. Thomas had offered £2750 for the hotel, but this had been distinctly refused, and there was nothing done to indicate to Mrs. Jones that Mr. Thomas was a likely purchaser. Mr. Jones had a perfect right to sell, and the sale amounted to a revocation of plaintiff’s authority, while the notice to Mr. John Mowbray was sufficient for both. Judgment would therefore go for the defendant on the ground that the authority was revoked before the agents had performed the services rendered. Judgment was then entered for defendant with costs, £4 10/6.

“What day was I born on, mother?” “ Thursday, child.” “ Wasn’t that fortunate! It’s your day-. * at home.’ ”