SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 486, 20 April 1909, Page 9

SUPREME COURT.

CS'T •M't'itdi.s.oiH j•« . Jo'i SALE OF TE AR"OH\

BIGHT TO COMMISSION nahTyestetday, 'in? connection with! a; motion ior. pew.j trial .of : the; ease of Williams; and Ltd., v. William■■■■■ Morice, Francis Morice, and David Morice. v' -. :>w ' " l,hfe;vplaihtiffs^--brougli.,b*Tai£Cacti<jii.'-''a'gaihsfe-lefOTdßp3»'vl^r''£B7o^g'ys'^wg! 'febnimisiibri. illeged;|i'^;. , of /i'e' jAroba sheep l station. It was tried before Mr. justice ..Chapman,.with a.jury of 12, at Gisbomo, in; March, (19C% yAccorditig to: plaintiffs, > the. sroporty was. placed in their hands .by de-' tendants for, sale..'. It>as time planed in 'tho hands of several other agents,,'ncluding Messrs. Murray, Roberts,'and Co. Wr 1 ; Bali})ur, : who,. ultimately '.became ■ the pur-1 had travelled from Canterbury, up the ff'est co«t of the' North Island, 'getting, narHCiilars of various > properties"-without' find* ing:.-a.nythihg^.:to';:sriit':.hini. , ! ; V'On: : hia' l way in>m ; Aiiclcland 'to ' Gisborne, "he •outlet .with a Mr. Coullxmrne,, who wa3 connected with- plaintiffs' Hastings'branch,'.to tyhom he'Wafed ;the -object of, his .visit"; Ooul-. rourne introduced him .to 'Mr. 1 ' M r ylie,"thc ;ocal .representative of plaintifts.who'had parfciculars: i . , 0f,,i,a : numher of properties ,on: his books.'. Tho station in question was. among' thb properties talked', about; 1 . ,At that time: tho .property'wasjundeivaii; option, ' which had some days to run. Subsequently there ffas,.corresTk>ndehoe'between)M?s3rs) Roberts, and Co., and Mr., Balfour. The property, which : was.purchased by Mr. Balfour, wiis .withdrawn froth,the 'hands of all. tho ngents. Defendants contended- that/the sale was ■ f brought, abojit' "by, UMcssrs. / Murray; Roberta, and Co.,- Ltd. The jury found in favour of plaintiffs'.'''.A,;ne^trial ; wiis.sought, on ..the;-ground; of..ihisVJircct3ony "no'ii-dircction amounting ;-.tb.: miSj3ircct.idii'; erroneous- receji-'' tion of: evidenoe, and that, the .'vordictf : was against; the weight, of evidence: i-,His Hohour; held : v i not to have admitted .evidence as, to local' Dur.tbni.::;The l .niatter'._could;not..botho : subject' of local,--usage.; the ; liability, 'miist bo {decided: Mcording.-t(j';law.'-' Many cases' showed that the. commission ; was. not: carried. unlets,-, as ■ »gent for .tho.defendintj-plaintiff-.'introduced: tho'. buyer, so that through' his : agency the, transacti6ti;..w.as .JubstahiiaUy'; 'effected.7': It; was'.iiucumbbnt .plaintiff,.to' iiriakc,''oiit'' that.''the., nitVoduction ..waV/an-'-e'ffisient .cauco mi .bringing: about? the 'transaction'.-'.' Avmere introduction might' and' ofj:«n dicj" suffice 5- but it.bught not to be laiddown itself sufficient. If the- evidence .in qu<!stion. had not,b«n:.admittcd,''the ; directioi'tb' the ;jury might have been "h'e: did riot - think that -it went far enough 'in making it clear th'fit they . bright not. to have j.ccbpted itho; doctrines of.- those, witnetrcs.It .was not enouglv'to slibia' that,'thi. direction w."s.verbally correct,,if it;.remained probable that it failed to clear- away- a misapprehension;, The. jury h.id not .had 'a proper opportunity of considering:tfe true question np ar t from■: that.raised ; by ':thej evident which''ho' ought .to. ; .have: rejected,. - He therefore mode rinvwder vfor ,«-.. now, trial . with -costs of th? motion,(l 2, guuvns); arid disbursements .costs iinJeFß othe'rwisw brdeted v- ' Mr. Skerrott, KC (>ilh him Mr H F ;PTOfwrt;bf inotionV jnd Mr Bell, Iv C. (with him Mr. Von JJaaat) t<j:pppoEe,; v " ' A :