A COMMISSION CASE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 3762, 26 March 1907, Page 3

A COMMISSION CASE.

At the S.M. Court yesterday before Mr Thompson S.M. Henry Coley, flaxmiller, of Foxton, sought to recover from James King, late of Foxton and now of Bunnythorpe, the sum of being commission on £6OO at the rate per cent on a property of defendant, the sale of which was effected by the plaintiff in September last. Mr Read appeared for plaintiff and Mr Moore for defendant. Plaintiff gave evidence that he had asked the defendant to allow him to sell bis property and he told him he expected commission for effecting a sale, plantiff sold the proparty to C. T. Davis and on completion of the transaction applied to defendant for commission at the rate of per cent., which was refused. In cross examination plaintiff said that Mr Davis was his partner in business but that the sale had nothing to do with that. Mr Davis had asked witness to look out for a property for him and he had Davis in mind when he approached King about the property. If he did not get commission from King he considered he ought to get it from Davis. Witness had obtained nothing in writing from King in reference to commission but had all along expected to receive commission and had said so to King.

James King, defendant gave evidence that plaintiff had first approached him about the purchase of the property but had said nothing about commission then. He introduced Davis as a buyer and defendant had all along supposed that plaintiff had been acting on behalf of Davis. When plaintiff and Davis came to see the property, plaintiff said something about commission but witness thought plaintiff was: joking and told him he had saved commission by selling the property himself and he did not agree to give any commission. Had always been on the best of terms with plaintiff, who he had known for a long time and was very grateful to him for helping witness through with this sale, but had never anticipated that any claim of this kind would be made.

The S.M. in giving judgmexxt said plaintiff had not made out his case. He was not an ordinary commission agent but a flaxmiller. This was the first occasion plaintiff had had land dealings.

At this stage plaintiff’s counsel rose and said before the S.M. gave judgment he would like to ask for a non-suit.

The S.M. said he was giving judgment when counsel interrupted him. He,was too late and further it was not a case for a non-suit.

The Magistrate, continuing his judgment said that under the circumstances, which were such that an implied contract could not be inferred, it was the plaintiff’s duty if he expected to receive commission, to make a clear and definite arrangement with the defendant about commission at the time the buyer was introduced, and if defendant would not come to terms with him plaintiff could, if he had wished, had declined to proceed further with the transaction. This had not been done and judgment must therefore be for defendant with solicitor’s fee 21s.