A COMMISSION CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2103, 11 June 1907, Page 1

A COMMISSION CASE.

' THE SALE OE A HOUSE. JUDGMENT DELIVERED. Judgment whs given by the Mag-: istruto, Mr. W. A. Darton, yestcrtiuy morning, in tlic commission case between Henry Currie and J. C. Aiekin, ciaim JcS O.

Tlie judgment reads: This is ai

action to recover from tile defendant the suni of £BO upon the following statement of claim:—“That in or

about the month of May, 1006,) the defendant employed the’ plaintiff for reward, and the;

plaintiff accepted such employment as a commission agent to sell property situated at the corner of de Lautour and Owen roads, Kaiti, for the sum of £1200: that the plaintiff, the said employment continuing, did on the lOtii day of November, 1906, sell the said property to one Richard Stephen; Chilton, and received the deposit of £lO from the said Mr. Chilton, hut the defendant refused to transfer the saiil property to the said Mr. Chilton and requested the piaintilf to return the said money to the said .Hr, CJhil-

:on, which plaintiff did: and the

plaintiff claims commission at 2J per cent, upon the said sale or the alternative for finding a purchaser for the said property on tho said terms for the sum of £30." 1 am of opinion that, plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount claimed. It is clear from the evidence that plaintiff was authorised to find a buyer for the pro-

perty at the sum of £I2OO. Ho advertised tho prorperty for sale and offered it to one Marshall, whom he took to look over it and subsequently sold t'o Mr. Chilton, who paid a deposit of £lO. Tho plaintiff saw defendant the same evening, and told

him that he had sold to Chilton, whereupon defendant said that ho had no authority to sell, and that

he had given the option to Mr Buscko t > sell the property during that month. It is not suggested that plaintiff had been previously informed that the property had been placed

in the hands of Mr. Busckc, and it is clear that there had been no revoca-

ion of plaintiff’s authority to find a

pmchaser. Defendant’s evidence is that he had agreed to pay the plain-

tiff the usual commission of 24 per cent, if he introduced a buyer for the property. The evidence shows clearly

that plaintiff introduced to defendant a person who was ready and willing to buy the property at the price, fixed by the defendant, viz., £I2OO. It is true that Mr. Chilton was not accepted by defendant as a purchaser. Why was he not accepted? Certainly not on the ground that he was an unsuitable person or through any. fault on the part of plaintiff, but for the reason that defendant had given the property into the hands of Mr. Buscke for that month to find a purchaser, of which plaintiff had not tho slightest notification. After considering the evidence and all the surrounding circumstances, I am of opinion that plaintiff has reasonably, performed his part of tho contract: and is therefore entitled to recover the amount claimed. Judgment was given for plaintiff fo - the amount claimed, with costs of Court £5 4s.

Mr. Stock gave notice of appeal