A COMMISSION CLAIM.

Matamata Record, Volume II, Issue 104, 31 October 1918, Page 2

A COMMISSION CLAIM.

Oven a Wahartoa Fai*m Sale. A dispute of much interest to local people arising from a claim, by Messrs Finnerty and Darby, land agents, of Matamata, of £l4B for commission on the sale of land, cattle and implements, against E. Baker, of Matangi, late of Waharoa, was heard by the Magistrate, Mr G. W. Kenrick, at Matamata, last Friday. Mr McConnell (Auckland), instructed by Messrs Bell, Hampson and Davys, appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr E. Stewart, (Hamilton) for the defendant. Joseph W. Finnerty, said he had held a land agent’s license for the past two years. In May last year he received authority, to sell defendant’s farm at Waharoa at the figure of £35 per acre. The authority had not been withdrawn. He had several times endeavoured to sell the farm, by advertisement and by taking men over the place. On May 6th last his partner, Darby, and he went to see Baker and asked him if his place was still on the market at the price.* Darby asked Baker if he would entertain a mortgage in part payment, and the answer was “ that if the mortgage was alright he would consider it.” That night witness rang up Mr Shepherd, at Peria, and told him of the property. Shepherd replied that he would inspect it that week. He was next concerned about the farm on the Wednesday when Mr Morelanc said he had introduced Baker and Shepherd to each other, anc that he had arranged with them for witness to take them to the farm on tho Saturday. They die not wait till the Saturday, but went on the Friday, to suit their client’s convenience. Mr anc Mrs Shepherd, and witness anc his partner, with the driver, occupied the car. He beiievec Moreland asked Miles for a seat but was informed that the car was full. The client was shown the farm, was satisfied, and' signed a sale note written out by Darby, on the farm. After the note was signed Baker agreed to pay £125, being commission on the farm. The firm did not charge'commission on the implements and cattle. They consequently made a claim for the commission but did not gat it. Questioned re Moreland witness said the latter had asked him (witness) to get him a job sharemilking, and had offered him a tai| pound bonus. A day or so alter meeting Shepherd he saw Moreland, and told him he might be able to get him a job with Shepherd, as he was selling a place to him. On Wednesday, May Bth, Moreland said he hac introduced Baker and Shepherd at the sale. To Mr Stewart: One of the men he had taken over the property prior to the sale was Mr D. Jones. He could not say who he saw* there, neither as to whether any other buyer besides Jones and Shepherd. Shepherd had inquired from them for a plaoe about two months before the sale. He was not in th v e habit of quoting the exact locality of properties over a party wire, as one did not know who else might be listening. That was why he said the properties were Walton way. The property was between Waharoa and Walton, and in the old days was known as being in the Walton district. Moreland had denied being an agent for Goldfinch (Hamilton) and had asked he (witness) what he would get out of it tor any man he brought along who bought. The Magistrate here said that it seemed to him that the defending counsel was endeavoring to make two agents entitled to a commission from Baker. Mr Stewart said he was endeavouring to show that Goldfinch, through his servant Moreland, was entitled to the commission. He admitted that Finnerty and Darby got the sale signed up, but alleged that it was by misrepresentation. Continuing, Finnerty said he told Moreland on the Tuesday that he (Finnerty) was endeavoring to bring the parties together. It was the next day that Moreland introduced the parties at the sale. He met Shepherd on the Saturday after he and his partner (Darby) had fixed up the sale, and Shepherd said Moreland was kicking up a row, stating that he 3ad had a lot of running about, and was entitled to a few pounds. Witness said if Moreland had .been running about he did not want him to do it for nothing; if he was entitled to it he would give him a few pounds. He did not tell Shepherd to offer Moreland £2O.

William T. Darby, corroborated I the previous witness’s evidence j and said it was whilst taking a ' man named Noakea to gut, a ! house they bad called on Bak . r to ask him if his authority still held good. He replied in the j

affirmative and said “ it depended” whether he would take a triortage in part payment. Witness, on the road to the farm, commented upon the fact of Moreland wanting to take a seat in the car, and Shepherd laughed and ridiculed it. The sale presented many difficulties, and they were on the place three or four hours before it was com- | pleted. At the conclusion witness drew up the agreement and i both parties signed it. A commission of £125 on the farm was agreed upon, leaving the stock and implements, which Shepherd bought, without commission. Baker agreed that it was a fair thing. - To Mr Stewart: When he got into the car to go to Baker’s, he did not know that Moreland had anything to do with the business. , They left it with Mr and Mrs Shepherd to view two properties, Baker’s and another. Nothing was offered to Shepherd for Moreland, to his knowledge, on the Saturday after the sale. This was all the evidence produced by plaintiffs. E. Baker admitted that he gave both Goldfinch and Fin- ; nerty arid Darby, authority to sell his farm. On May Bth More- ; land told- witness he had a good mortgage. The Magistrate here said it appeared to him that the defence was trying to prove a case for Goldfinch. The result might be that the defendant would have to pay two commissions. If the witness told the truth, without varnish, the result would be that he would be able to judge as to who sold the farm. Defendant, continuing, said he did not consider he owed money to Finnerty and Darby. The 1 latter did visit the farm on May 1 6th and asked if the place was still for sale. He said, yes. They - asked him if he would entertain a 1 mortgage and he said, no, he would rather not. On the Wednesday he made arrangements with Moreland for a prospective buyer to visit the farm. More- ■ land also said his buyer had a ’ good mortgage; witness ohangec his mind since he had met Finnerty and Darby and said he would entertain exchanging the 1 farm for the mortgage. He was introduced to Shepherd, and ultimately made arrangements for 1 him to inspect th 6 farm on the Saturday. Later he saw Moreland again and the latter said he had arranged for Finnerty anc Darby to trike him to the farm on the Saturday. On the Friday Finnerty and Darby arrived on the with Mr Shepherd. He said to them “ Hello you are a day before your time.” They inspected the place and Shepherc insisted upon the machines being included with the farm and so he asked the agents, if be complied, would they knock the commission off the cattle. He agreed on £125 commission before the agreement was signed. Mr Darby drew up the sale note, which was signed by both parties and witnessed by Mr Finnerty. He was supposed to visit Matamata next day to sign up, but arrived on the Saturday. He met Morelanc who told him not to go on with it, “ as they are doing me out of the commission ” —to use Moreland’s own words. He then made arrangement to draw up a new agreement on the Monday. He expected Finnerty and Darby, Moreland and Shepherd to arrive on the Saturday, and was surprised when they arrived on Friday. The Magistrate said the sooner people realised that they should trust one agent with property until they got tired of him, the better it would be for them. Farmers landed themselves into trouble by giving their properties to too many agents to sell. To Mr McConnell: When he first met Moreland he had not met Shepherd. It was after Moreland saw Finnerty that he was introduced to tho buyer. Finnerty and Darby spent some time on the farm, helped to smooth matters oijit and agreed to reduce the so that the parties could effect a deal. He had never known, the plaintiffs to be taxi-drivers. He thought Finnerty and Darby and Moreland were working together. D. Shepherd (the purchaser) in evidence, said on the Wednesday he met Moreland and the latter asked him if he bad done anything with his mortgage. Witness said he had not and would deal, providing the farm wds in good heart. He said the Saturday was the only convenient time je could get off to see it, and it was arranged accordingly. About fifteen minutes later Moreland returned and said Finnerty and Darby would drive him down. In reply to a question as to how he would let him know if anything transpired th f at he could not go, Moreland said to ring up Finnerty. He was able to go on the Friday and culled at the plaintiffs’ office and got into the car (Miles’). • Moreland came up after witness . got.into tbe car, but he had no conversation with him. Going J down, Darby commented on i

Moreland wanting to go, and witness passed a remark to the effect that the deal did not need too many heads. Plaintiffs’ evidence as to the completion of the deal was corroborated. About a week before the deal, he said, Finnerty had rung him up and stated that he had two properties Walton way. He was not sure that Moreland was to go on the Saturday. To Mr McConnell: He knew he was to go in Finnerty and Darby’s car, and did not know of any arrangement between plaintiffs and Moreland. It was in respect to his mortgage that the plaintiffs had told him of the Walton properties. Moreland had never told him that he was working for Goldfinch. His idea of signing a second agreement was that it should be in absolute correct legal form. J. W. Moreland said that he had an authority to sell Baker’s property. The Magistrate said he could riot see that Moreland was directly interested in the case as it was brought. Continuing, he said he was quite satisfied on the evidence that Baker could not get away from the fact that he gave plaintiffs authority to sell. It was conclusively proved that they effected the sale. It might be possible that both plaintiffs and Moreland had got hold of the same buyer, but the former had been smartest by a day. The liveliest men had got the sale and were entitled to the commission. They had done all that land agents should do in their line of business. The evidence disclosed that a sale would have been effected even if Moreland had not introduced Shepherd to Baker. How much, or whether plaintiffs should pay Moreland was a matter apart from the case. Whether not Moreland or Goldfinch cared to fighj; it out by bringing another case was not for,him to say. The facts were, summed up, that Finnerty and Darby had completed the sale and required the commission, which on the face of it they were entitled to. If anything had beep agreed upon between the agents they should, iike any business men, have it in writing. His judgment was for plaintiffs for the amount (£125) stated in Baker’s agreement.