Untitled

Gisborne Times, Volume V, Issue 85, 19 April 1901, Page 4

Continued from third page. Mr W. L. Rees appeared fer plaintiff, and Mr DeLautour for defendant.

Plaintiff deposed that he had arranged the sale of two blocks to Mr Andrew Reeves, of Tolago Bay, about the end of November or beginning of December. On February ISth, he went to Mr Reeves’ house, and Mr Reeves said that he had bought the property entirely upon witness’s recommendation. He had not, in selling the property, agreed to accept any responsibility in the matter of the sale beyond finding a purchaser. Mr Cooper was to arrange terms. In October or November, he told Mr Cooper that he had a purchaser in view from the South Island, but that he could not possibly be here till January, 1901. Mr Cooper objected that that was too long to wait, and witness .replied : 1 1 That need not stop you from selling in the meantime. I’ll do my best to effect a sale in the meantime, as it will be to my interest to do so.” In December, he had seen Mr Cooper again, and said: “ I hoar that you have raised the price of the land,” and he replied that he had raised it to 27s 6d per acre. Witness replied that he had already offered it at 255, the price originally fixed, but that when his client (Mr Reeves) came forward that could be easily remedied. That was the last interview he had had with Mr Cooper before the sale. He had seen him after the sale, and asked him for commission, which he refused to pay. The reason he alleged for so doing was that he had seen Mr Reeves' son a good while ago, and had asked him to buy the land. Witness replied that Mr Reeves’ sou did not buy the land —Mr Reeves himself had bought it. He had a letter from Mr Reeves stating it was on witness’s recommendation that he had bought the land. Mr Cooper declined to read the letter, and witness retorted that the plain English of the matter was that Mr Cooper had never intended to pay the commission. The £54 was a fair pro rata share of commission.

By Mr DeLautour: Witness was a sheep-farmer, and not a commission agent, by profession. He sold on commission sometimes. He resided near these properties, his land bounding them. At the first interview he was a possible buyer, Mr Cooper having offered it to him. Mr Cooper said that the price was cash, and witness said he could not take it at that rate. It then occurred to him that he might as well earn the commission as anyone else, A boundary fence was necessary between this property and that owned by witness. The sale to his friend from the South would not have obviated the necessity fori the fence. The .£IOO was commission for the sale of the three blocks. It was not conditional upon his friend from the South becoming the purchaser. The promise to give the .£IOO was made in the presence of Mr H. M. Rorter at his office. He had never objected to go on with the boundary fencing, and had given defendant notice to go on with his share. He did not say that ho could not wait longer for his friend from the South ; he would have to go on with the fencing. _ He did not say that the prospect of his friend becoming a purchaser was too- remote. Ho did not mention Reeves’ name to Porter or Cooper before the sale. He made a special journey from his residence to Mr Reeves’ to endeavor to effect the sale. The property had never been withdrawn from his hands.

Andrew Reeves deposed that in November plaintiff had come to him stating that Mr Cooper had authorised him to sell throe sections, and that if he wished to buy he was to go to Gisborne and arrange with Mr Cooper or his agent. Witness agreed to go up some day and see the land in company with Mr Caldwell, who drew him a sketch plan showing the situation of the land. He was confident that he could not get better information concerning the land from Mr Caldwell. He purchased the property (two sections) on February 6th. At that time he did not, as far as he could remember, mention Caldwell in the matter. The price of tlie land was.a little more than 27s Od. He had written Mr Cooper, at Mr Caldwell’s request, stating the part that Caldwell had taken in the sale.

By Mr De Lautour : He wont to see Mr Cooper in consequence of information received from his son. He was given to understand by Caldwell that Cooper would either sell the three blocks or none. The sale arose through his son’s interview frith Mr Cooper. Re-examined by Mr Rees: In the letter put in he was in error in stating that his son went to Mangatu about the middle of February. He should liavo.said January. It was from Mr Caldwell’s recommendation that ho bought the land. Mr De Lautour said that their only contract with Mr Caldwell was to give him £IOO if he sold the three sections to his friend from the South, which ho did not succeed in doing. The sale really arose through the interview of Reeves, junr., with Mr Cooper. The defendant deposed that over 12 months ago Caldwell had asked witness to give him an offer of the blocks. They bad met in Porter’s office, and witness told him that cash must be paid for the land. He said he could not find cash, but thought he could get defendant a purchaser. The amount of £IOO was agreed on if Caldwell brought a purchaser. In October last Caldwell gave witness notice about fencing. Ho at that time said that he thought he had a possible purchaser from the South. Witness understood that the Southern buyer would buy both Caldwell's and witness’s properties. Caldwell again called on him in December, and said that his purchaser was off, and he would give the whole thing up, and that they would arrange about going on with the erection of the boundary fence. That ended the matter. Witness did not see him again till after the completion of the sale, when he brought the letter from Mr Reeves. After plaintiff gave up the matter he met Mr Reeves’ son at Maugatu, and had negotiations with him and another son. When Reeves came to buy he opened the matter by reference to this interview. Witness objected to read Reeves’ letter to him concerning Caldwell’s recommendation, as Reeves had not mentioned the matter to him.

By Mr Bees : Plaintiff was acting on the employment to sell to the end of December, but it was always this purchaser from fho South. No other wcro "ever mentioned, A specific pqrcbgse vvas mentioned in October. Plaintiff was to bring the purchaser to him. He told Caldwell when he tendered a claim for commission that he had already paid commission. He had paid it to H. M. Porter.

H. M. Porter, commission and station agent, deposed that he had effected the sale of two of these. blocks to Mr Beeves. He had been paid commission. About ten months ago Cooper mentioned Caldwell to him as a possible buyer, and brought him to witness’s office. Witness corroborated the evidence of former witnesses as to cash proving an obstacle, and Caldwell stating he had a friend from the South who might take both Caldwell’s and Cooper’s properties. Caldwell was to get £IOO if he sold to his friend. Beeves bought at 28s Gd per acre. By Mr Bees; At the interview with Cooper at Christmas, Caldwell said, as near as he could recollect, “ I am afraid my friend is going to disappoint me. . I have given up all hopes of him, at any rates, so that boundary fence had better be gone on with. He added that his boys would be prepared to put it up at a price, By Mr DeLautour : Caldwell had only one person to sell to '? Mr Bees: I object. The point is material, Your Worship. His Worship : Yes, it is material. Witness said he had gathered that Caldwell had to bring the Southern buyer along. Mr Bees: What did he say ? Mr DeLautour : Didn’t Cooper offer to give him £IOO if he sold to his friend from the South ?

Mr Bees again objected, as the witness was asked to make an inference, which was the duty of the Court. His Worship upheld the contention. Mr DeLautour put the question another way, witness stating that £IOO was to be given if the sale took place. Mr DeLautour : What sale ?

Mr Bees again objected. After addresses by Counsel, His Worship said that he was satisfied that the sale was effected through the. intervention of Caldwell, and that he was therefore entitled to commission. He experienced some difficulty though in assessing the amount, but felt' that ho would be quite safe in fixing it at £4O; costs £7 is 9d,