LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1891, 28 October 1913, Page 11

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. 1 t PROCEEDINGS IN AN HOTEL SALE, ( i PALMERSTON APPEAL. j < " ! An appeal from tho decision of tho ' Stipendiary Magistrate at Palmerston 1 North (Mr. J. W: Poynton) was heard -, yesterday by tho Chief Justice (Sir 1 llobert- Stout). Tho appellant was i Arthur Henry Rogers, hotelkeeper, ; Auckland, lato of Palmerston, and tho respondents wera Abraham and Wil- ' liams, Ltd., auctioneers and land and | commission agents, Palmerston Nortli. In tho action heard at Palmerston. on May 13, tho auctioneers claimed £50 for work and attendance in the salo of tho license and furnituro of tho Boyal Hotel, Palmerston North, the property i of Mr. Rogers, and wero awarded £46 i 13s. 4d., with costs. Original Case. It was set forth during tho proceedings that on September ' 13, 1912, Mr. j R. S'. Abraham, manager of tho respondent company, interviewed appellant with the view of acquiring liiß sn--1 terest in tho lease and furniture of tho Royal Hotel on behalf of a syndicate, consisting of. Messrs. W. A. Keillor, C. A. Loiighnan, and himself, who wero negotiating for tho purchase of tho freehold from Messrs. Waldegrave Bros., the owners. Appellant agreed to sell the leaso and furniture for £4500. A special contract was made wherein appellant agreed to pay £50 commission in the event of tho sale being effected. On November 5 Mr. Abraham offered respondent £4000, explaining that as "his clients had been compelled to purchase tho present Bonk of New Zealand as part of tho arrangement ho was unable to obtain from them the full price." This offer was declined by appellant, but subsequently accepted an offer or £4200. Tho sale was carried out, but appellant declined to pay -the £60 commission, but at tho Magistrate's Court Mr. Abraham was awarded £46 18s. 4d. and costs, against which tho appeal was made on tho ground that tho judgment was erroneous in law. The appellant's defence in the Magistrate's Court was that, as Mr. Abraham was ono of the syndicate to whom the property was sold and as his interests were opposed to those of his principal, he was not entitled to any commission, ' that there was no agreement to pay commission on a salo for undor £4600, and that the sale having taken place for a much less sum, and there being 110 second arrangement as to commission, it could not be recovered. The Magistrate, in delivering judgment, said that Mr. Rogers had full knowledge that Mr. Abraham was ono of tho syndicate, and could not refuse to pay commission on that ground, and that the subsequent salo at a lesser amount did not doprivo Mr. Abraham of a right to commission, but it wad only fair that tho sum should be reduced proportionately. Tho Appeal. Mr. H. R. Cooper (Cooper and Ruddifurd), on bohalf of appellant, contended that as all negotiations wero conducted by Sir. Abraham, general manager of tho plaintiff company, who was ono of tho purchasers, ho was precluded from claiming oommission. Sir. Rogers agreed to pay commission if a sale was effected for £4500, au<Tas that contract was never varied Mr. Abraham was not entitled to commission, as tho purchase price was £800 loss. There was 3io evidence of iny agreement to pay commission on the salo actually effected or entitling plaintiff to recover on a quantum meruit. Mr. P. E. Baldwin having replied on behalf of the respondent, His Honour reserved judgment. THE DILEMMA. RIVER BOARD &. RATING SYSTEM. Ihe system of rating to bo adopted by a recently-formed River Board was argued at the Supremo Court yesterday bclore the Chief Justice (Sir Robort Stout). Tho plaintiffs -wore tho Palmerston North Kairanga River Board, and the defendants were tho Palmerston North Borongh Council and tho Kairanga County Council, Mr. 11. R, Cooper representing tho former and Mr. E. H. Cooke the latter. Tlio questions submitted for the decision of the Court were: On what system must the plaintiff board levy rates in its district? If not on the system of rating on unimproved value, can the plaintiff board adopt such system in manner provided by tho Rating Act, 1908 P Can assessors appointed under Section 94 of the -River Bpards Act, 1908, to classify tho lands in tho river district, divide any of the Eeparato properties as shown on the assessment rolls supplied by tlio ValuerGeneral pursuant to Section 88 of the Itiver Boards Act, 1908, or : must each property be classified as a whole? Does the constitution of tho River Board affect tho validity of rights to remove gravel and shingle granted for a period of years by the owners of lands on the banks of the river prior to tho creation of the river district? In. particular; (a) Can the River Board determine such rights? (b) If so, can the board itself grant rights to remove gravel from the bed of the 1 river? . (c) Has the board power to consent j to the continuance of existing rights ? (d) If so, under what conditions should the board properly grant such censent? His Honour asked if the land in the district had been classified. Mr. Cooper replied that it bad not, and that that was one of the questions to be decided—on what system must the plaintiff board levy rates. There were three systems, rating on annual value, on capital value, and on unim-; proved value, and Mr. Cooper quoted sections under which tho annual value and the unimproved value wero eliminated, contending, therefore, that tlio rating must bo on tho system of capital value. Mr. Cooke having argued that tlio rating should bo on tlio unimproved yalue, His Honour reserved judgment, each side agreeing ia pay their own costs.