LAND AGENTS ACT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 253, 13 July 1918, Page 3

LAND AGENTS ACT

QUESTION OF KEGISTEATION.

\n alleged infraction of the Land •Wnts Act was the subject of an action heard beforp Mr. 1". V. Frazer, b.-M., ve.ste<-divy. Defendant in the case was proceeded against by tho police on an information of having carried on business as a land agent' without being licensed so to do.

Inspector Marsaek prosecuted, and Mr. C. B. Morison, K.C., appeared for the defendant, and entered a plea of not guilty. Inspector Marsack said that defendant had inserted advertisements in various papers, but when questioned by a constable he said he wn.s merely acting us agent'for Lomax and Co., and admitted having received commissions for sale.-i which had been put through on behalf of the latter firm. The inspector tontended that at Hie time the advertisements wore- inserted defendant was not n registered land agent within the meaning of the Act. Constable F. Wallace stated that he interviewed the defendant, who said that ho was acting as. agent for Loinax and Co. If clients interviewed him regarding sales of land ho referred them to Lomax and Co. When sales were effected ho received from Lomax and Co. half of the commission. He did not say anything about putting sales through lor himself.

( Mr. Morison said the Land Agents Act dealt only villi principals, one partner only having to tako out a license. It was not necessary that all sales should bo made by the license-holder. In the ovent of misconduct the 'iceiise-holder was liable, not the subordinate. Defendant received all his instructions from his principals, Messrs. Lomax and Co. If defendant had been noting as a principal, then, of course, he would be liable if he practised as a land agent without a- license. But that was not the position—lie was merely a subordinate.

Inspector Marsacfc submitted that tho Act laid it down, that tho business of a land agent should only be carried on in a registered office.

His Worship was of opinion that a licensed laud ngent coulcl carry on business anywhere, and have his registered office situated in any town ho^likod. In giving his decision", His Worehip said Mint defendant was not n kind of freelance njjent, who put through sales in the name of soino convenient, agent, who would be a party to a breach of the law. Apparently defendant was a bona'lido agents of a registered land ajjent. He was satisfied that the information must 1)0 dismissed.