TE KUITI S.M. COURT.

King Country Chronicle, Volume III, Issue 122, 14 January 1909, Page 2

TE KUITI S.M. COURT.

♦ Wednesday, January 13th, 1909.

Before Mr Widdowson, S.M,

Collett v. Collctt, claim £l3 10s, adjourned from Hamiltion to Te Kuii. Judgment was given for £l3 10s and costs £3 lis. Mr Sharpies appeared for plaintiff and Mr Hine for defendant. -A Liquor CaseJames McColl, charged with having brought liquor into the distirct for the purposes of sale, was represented by Mr Sharpies and pleaded not guilty. Mr Sharpies applied for an adjournment, as he had only been instructed that morning, but His Worship held that defendant had had ample time to instruct counsel and the case should proceed.

Constable Mathew being sworn, said that defendant, in company with two others, left the train at Te Kumi with a case of whisky, which he brought to Ta Kuiti.

Mr Sharpies wished to know if the Constable knew of this personally, and witness said his statement was from information received.

His Worship ruled that hearsay matter should not be admitted as evidence.

Witness proceeding, said he served defendant with a summons on December 12th. Defendant admitted having had a case of whisky on the day he got off at Te Kumi station. He said he could account for his lot; three bottles bad been broken between Te Kumi and Te Kuiti; the balance they drank. By Mr Sharpies : From information received, he knew defendant had got off at Te Kumi. Did not know of his own knowledge. That was all he knew. Mr Sharpies submitted there was no case to answer. Defendant was specifically charged with having the whisky on and after November 28th, and there was no evidence on the point whatever. His Worship dismissed the case without prejudice whatever.

—A Commission Case — Lorigan and Co., v. A. Julian. Claim £92 commission on the sale of defendant's farm at Mangaotaki. Mr Broadfoot appeared for plaintiffs and Mr Howarth for defendant. Evidence in support of the claim was given by Messrs Lorigan and Johnson, plaintiffs, to the effect that the property was in their hands for sale and was submitted among others, to Mr Newcombe who subsequently purchased it. The property was described to Mr Newcombe and highly recommended as showing good grass. J. M. Nicholson, accountant for Lorigan and Co.. stated in evidence that he heard Mr Lorigan describe the property to Newcombe. Witness also supplied property lists to Newcombe, containing a description of the property in question. A. D. McCardle gave evidence to the effect that he heard Mr Johnson recommending Mr Julian's property to Newcombe. Witness lent Newcombe a horse. Understood it was to go to Piopio or Pa^mako. Cross examined by Mr Howarth, witness stated he quoted a property of his own to Newcombe. Said that Lorigan and Co. had the property in their hands for .sale at .'ids an acre, but they might quote higher. Newcombe said he wondered if Lorigan and Johnson were going straight and said he did not want have to anything to do with them.

Arthur Otway was calied to give evidence as to a conversation between himself and Mr Newcombe at Mahoenui, but His Worshhip ruled that the evidence was not admissable.

An agreement between Mr Newcombe and defendant was put, under which Mr Newcombe undertook to protect defendant from any claim for commission, and Mr Broadfoot applied to have Mr Newcombe joined as a defendant. His Worship ruled that such a course was not necessary. For the defence, A. Julian stated he placed the property in the hands of Lorign and Co. for sale. Subsequently Mr Johnson inspected the property and asked witness to give them the sole agency. Witness finally consented to do so.

Lorigan and Co. were to receive .£92 commission for a speedy sale, and : half of what they could get over £3 an acre. Witness heard that the property j was being quoted by Lorigan and Co. considerably higher than £3 an acre and cancelled the sole agency authority immediately. Witness was informed by Mr Johnson that Mr Moorhouse was being taken out to see the property. Had never heard Mr Newcombe'sname mentioned. Witness met Newcombe for the first time at Awakino sale on November 28th. They were introduced i by Mr Moore of Mahoenui, and a coni versation took place which eventually j led to the sale of the property. Witi nees said the property was in the agents' hands for sale and the commission was £92. If he sold the property privately he would take £92 lessthan the agents would sell for. Newcombe asked if witness would sell to him on those terms, and he said yes. Newcombe said he had been to Lorigan and Co., and wished to have nothing to do with them. Mr Johnson in particular was most forcing in some respects. Witness asked if he had heard my name mentioned, and he asked if my name was Sloman, as that was the name which had been drummed into him. Witness asked was it not Julian, and Newcombe said "No, Sloman." Newcombe inspected the property; went away, and returned in about a week with a friend, and after looking over the place again the sale was arranged. Witness had a conversation with ihr Johnson after the sale was arranged. Johnson aaid they would claim commission. Witness said he had sold less commission and asked Lorigan and Co. to give him a letter stating they claimed commission. That letter (produced) he showed to Newcombe who said he would indemnify witness.

Cross-examined by Mr Broadfoot, witness said Mr Newcombe took a good while to consider before signing the agreement with the indemnity clause. Alfred Newcombe stated in evidence that he had a letter of introduction to I/origan and Co from a Mr Chamberlain. Had been given particulars of some properties by Mr Chamberlain who requested him to say nothing about the fact. Called at Lorigan and Co and saw Mr Nicolson, who described several properties to witness. The following day and the day after, Mr

Lorigan took witness to see several properties, among them Mr Sloman's place. In the meantime witness had met Mr McCardle, who took him to see his property. To his recollection Lorigan and Co. did not describe Mr Julian's property to him. Witness got Mr McCardle's horse to go to Piopio and look at Mrs McDonald, property, particulars of which had been given him by Mr Chamberlain. On the road witness met Mr McGrath and in conversation Mr McGrath suggested witness should accompany him to Awakino sale, where witness would meet settlers, and on the road see some good country. Went to the sale and there met Mr Julian. Witness corroborated Mr Julian's statement as to the meetin? and the arranging for the purchase of the property. Witness further stated that had he not seen Lorigan and Co. he would still have purchased the property. Cross-examined by Mr Broadfoot, witness said that if Mr McCardle stated that witness asked Mr McCardle to say nothing to Lorigan and Co. about dealing with McCardle's property, Mr McCardle must have misunderstood. Witne-is wished to get the owner's price, not the agents'. If Mr Otway said witness told him anyhting about Lorigan and Co. in connection with Mr Julian's property, that would be, in a sense, untrue. Witness and Mr Otway stayed together at Mahoenui and conversed a good deal. Witness said he was lucky to strike a deal privately with the owner. All the statements

for the plaintiff with regard to introducing Mr Julian's property were incorrect. "I recollect nothing of it." E. Moore of Mahoenui gave evidence as to introducing Mr Newcombe to Mr Julian at Awakino sale.

J. McGrath deposed to meeting Mr Newcombe on the road and inducing him to go to Awakino sale. Understood Mr Newcombe was going to see a property at Piopio. This closed the case for the defence, and Mr Broadfoot applied to be allowed to bring evidence to rebut statements made by Mr Newcombe with regard to a conversation with Mr Otway. The Magistrate would not allow the application.

His Worship in delivering judgment, said he would like to refer to one portion of the evidence. A suggestion that plaintiffs had acted in an underhand manner was not justified. Anything that was done was with the consent of the other party. Judgment would be for plaintiffs with costs £9 14s.