"A TAINTED DEAL."

King Country Chronicle, Volume V, Issue 346, 18 March 1911, Page 5

"A TAINTED DEAL."

LAND AGENTS' COMMISSION. At the Magistrate's Court on Thursday, Lorigan arid Co., land agent*, To Kuiti, tati'd \V. Mc\:»ir;hl. saddler, of To Kuiti, for . "J."., alleged commission on the sale of Mc N am; h t's property in liora st root. Mr G. J'. Finlay appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr 11. ! [ inr for vhi' defendant. Mr 11 i 1:o raised the point that the staimnent of claim did not disclose a cause of action, and submitted that rlu> plain fill's ought to be non-suited, with costs to the defendant. ilia Worship, however, ruled that ho had power to amend the statement of claim, which was altered to one of commission. Mr Hirte submitted that his Worship had no power to amend the statement of claim and asked him to note the objection, which he agreed to do. A. C. Johnston, land agent, of Te Kuiti, stated that in June, 1909 he approached McNaught with a view to selling his property. He informed defendant that Lorigati, his then partner, would buy the property. Defendant agreed to pay a commission of .£25, in the event of the property being sold to Lorigan. Witness drew up an instruction form for sale, but defendant refused to sign it.

By Mr Hine: He could not remember that the property, including the goodwill, was put in his hands for sale for one month only. He could not remember taking a cheque for £17.") to McNaught and McNaught saying to him that the option of one month had expired, and that, therefore, witness had no authority to sell. YV. Lorigan, land agent, Te Kuiti, said that he had been informed by Johnston that McNaught's property was for sale. He approached the defendant, who said that it was. Witness said that McNaught agreed to the commission, but did not want it taken od the first payment. On making a settlement in .January, 1910, defendant said that he would not pay commission. On the advice of his solictior witness paid over the full amount to defendant, and decided to take civil action for recovery of the commission on the sale. Witness was certain that defendant was aware that Johnston had introduced the sale. James Nicholson, accountant for the firm of Lorigan and Co., said that he remembered defendant promising to pay the commission of £25. By Mr Hine: He remembered plaintiffs securing option for one month. He was also aware that the plaintiff had a buyer in view. By his Worship: He remembered hearing a discussion between Lorigan and McNaught regarding the turnover. He understood the. goodwill was included in the original amount. W. McNaught, saddler, said he remembered Johnston coming to him several times with a view to getting his authority to sell. Witness said he wanted £SOO for the land and building, £3OO for the stock and £2OO for the goodwill. Johnston filled up a form which he refused to sign, but gave him an option of sale for one month. Three or four days after the month was up Johnston came to him with a cheque for £175 as a deposit and said that he had found a buyerMr Lorigan. Witness replied to Johnston that the month had expired and that he would not sell. Johnston complained that witness wps not treating him fairly and witness replied that he did not want anything more to do with him. About a week or ten days after Lorigan came to witness and discussed the question of purchasing the property. Witness replied that he would consider the deal between himself and Lorigan a private one. Witness eventually agreed to sell the property without any goodwill but there was no commission to be charged. Witness was sharply cross-examined by opposing counsel and his Worship, regarding the negotiations, and stoutly maintined that he had not agreed to pay commission. His Worship, in giving judgment, said that the transaction was not a proper one. The agent had sought out the vendor and, willy-nilly, induced the property holder to put the property in his hands for sale. The various negotiations of which the defendant had been informed by the plaintiff apparently existed in his lively imagination. The transaction was not a proper one, and was tainted. Land agents had no right to lend themselves to such practices. He asked what had been done by Lorigan and Co. to earn the commission. Nothing. They had done no work to earn the commission, and in fact had gone far over the border line of legitimate business. He gave judgment for defendant with costs.