THE CIVIL SIDE.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1899, 6 November 1913, Page 3

THE CIVIL SIDE.

AN ENTRANCE TO A THEATRE.

lesterday, before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Charles Baker, agent, of Wellington, appealed against the decision of Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., G 15, 1912, when 110 claimod i.Jo Bs. 9d. from B. Doherty and another as commission 011 the sale of land utilised by the People's Picture Palace Company, Manners Street, his claim being dismissed.

Mr. Gray, IC.C., with Mr. 0. Beere, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. M. Mjers, with Mr. A. M. Salek, represented defendants.

It was submitted - by Mr- Gray that 1 but for Mr. Baker's intervention the 1 ot land would not liavo eventuated, as Jie introduced Mr. Lowden, he arlangcd tho contract, he advised both parties on the benefits of increasing the purchase, and ho took an activo part, in the completion of the agreement between Mr. Lowden. and tho coinpany. He submitted that thero was an original retainer by Mr. Baker when the receipt was .signed. His Honour: I can't hold that; thero is 110 evidence that there was such a tiling. Mr. Gray submitted that Mr. Baker was entitled to commission as being the cause of tho ultimate transaction. +1, Honour: What evidence is there that the Palace Company was induced to buy by Mr. Baker? According to Mr. Doherty's evidence he saw the directors himself. There is no evidence that Mr. Baker saw them. . Mr. Gray: Mr. Baker says he was in constant communication with Mr. Lowden, who was tho promoter of tho company, though not a director. The facts clearly established the fact that but for Mr. Baker that sale wculd not have been, brought about. His Honour: People could not get a proper entrance to the theatre unless the company had got this land. Mr. Gray: Thero were other ways and other sections of land.

His Honour: There was no mention of commission until the agreement was signed.

Mr. Gray: I can't dispute that. It was perhaps thought by both parties that it t was not nccessary to. mention commission. Mr. Gray added: It is the first business of a land agent to got commission.

His Honour: It was once said by" a lawyer that tho most important thing about a law caso was question bf costs. Mr. Gray added that Mr. Doherty's ovidonco showed that ho understood that Mr. Lowden was agent for the company, and was dividing commission with Mr. Baker, which proved that Mr. Dohorty knew that Mr. Baker was to rcceivo commission.

Mr. Myers, in refily, pointed out that though he did not suggest fraud thero was a misrepresentation by Mr. Lowden and Mr. Baker in allowing Mr. Doherty to assume that there was a company formed. There was not a tittle, of evidence to show that Baker was employed in any way for tho sale of the property. This company did not come into existence until Mr. Doherty refused to carry out the original agreement made with Sir. Lowden. Mr. Baker had no general authority to soli tho land, which was sold to a company not in existence when all negotiations with Mr. Lowden wore broken off. Mr. Baker's only title to commission was in tlio ,ovent of the original contract being carried out, and a company being formed with Mr. Nathan and Mr. Bush as directors, which was not the case.

Mr. Gray held that it was tho same company, the same land, and tho same price, and that Mr. Baker introduced Mr. Lowden as tho promoter of the company. Tho sale was the outcome of Mr. Baker's advico to both sides, and the result of his exertions.

His Honour reserved judgment,