A Claim for Commission.

Manawatu Herald, 21 April 1894, Page 2

A Claim for Commission.

.«.« tne Palmerston Magistrate 1 ! Court last Wednesday the following local case was heard and decided :— George Aifcken v. T. H. Haselden, claim £100 ; Mr Wallace for plaintiff, and Mr Haselden for defendant. This was a case in which plaintiff sought to recover £100, commission^ on the sale of land on behalf of defendant. Plaintiff, a clergyman of "the Church of England, in charge of the Foxton district, gave evidence to the effect that defendant had offered to pay him £100 if he could find a purchaser for some property. While in Wellington he interviewed Mr E. B. Browne with reference to the sale of defendant's property. The price required was £5 per acre. Mr Browne refused to look at the property at that price, and on being assured that defendant would be willing to take a smaller figure, Mr Browne said he would make a sporting offer. Witness made arrangements for Mr Browne to visit the property. Soon after this . it was rumoured that Mr Brown had purchased the property. He heard the rumour in Shannon, and wrote to defendant saying he was only .prevented from tiding up to see if it were true because he had not time.. In reply he received a note from defendant stating that the brother of Mr Browne, interviewed by him had purchased the property, and as the first mentioned Mr Browne might claim commission for having mentioned the property to hig brother, it was probable the promised cheque would not be so large as expected. In cross-examination, plaintiff said he understood that he was to re» ceive £100 if be succeeded in finding a purchaser for the property, He did not understand that he was to find a purchaser at a certain price. He was, so far as he understood, simply to Bend a purchaser who would agree to purchase at any price offered by. the defendant. For the defence it waa alleged that plaintiff had failed to establish any contract between the parties. It was, however, admitted that defen* dant had agreed to pay plaintiff £100 if he succeeded in fidding a purchaser for his property at £5 an acre. He had failed to do so, and the property had eventually been sold for under £4 per acre. It was further alleged that the property had " been mentioned to Mr Browne before plaintiff undertook to find a purchaser. ■ • -.;;' Defendant and Messrs F. and B. Browne Rave evidence, „ ; In summing up, his Honor said that he thongUMhe- contract entered into between the. defendant and the^ brother of the purchaser/: mi?'' -F^ Browne, was most- 4ikely to be the correct one; Plaintiff was noneftdteft - with costs £11 2s.— Standard.