A COMMISSION AGENCY CASE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 401, 23 June 1908, Page 2

A COMMISSION AGENCY CASE.

Rae-Howard v. Akers and Aflackay. Case Adjourned. At the local S.M. Court yesterday, before Mr A. D. Thomson, S.M., P. H. Rae Howard, of Foxton, commission agent, sued William Akers and Robert Mackay, both of Linton, for being £lO deposit paid by him for defendants on the purchase of 10 acres of land at Himatangi, from one Hewitt, £5 commission agreed to be paid to him by Hewitt, and £5 the same amount agreed to be paid.to him by defendants.

Mr Moore appeared for plaintiff, and Mr C. A. Loughnan for defendants.

Mr Moore said that plaintiff had arranged a sale from Hewitt to Akers of a section of 10 acres at Himatangi. In pursuance of instructions from Mr Rae-Howard a transfer had been sent to Hewitt to sign, and Mr limes, solicitor for Hewitt, subsequently wrote to say the transfer was signed and would be handed over on payment ot the purchase money, but the latter, after considerable dela}q forwarded a cheque only upon terras which he considered it impossible to fulfil. The sale accordingly was never completed, and defendant alleged that the failure to complete was due to the fault of the defendants in not paying the purchase money, except on new conditions which had not been completed at the time the purchase was arranged. Counsel then read the correspondence on the matter which had passed between the various parties and their solicitors, which was very extensive.

Mr Loughnan submitted that no case could be sustained against defendant Akers, because being out of the country he could not be served with a summons personally, and service on his agent was not sufficient without an order from the. Court to that effect.

The Magistrate expressed the opinion that Mr Mackay was not responsible, because throughout the whole transaction he had contracted as agent only, and had never held himself out as a principal party. Mr Eoughnan intimated that he was willing to take service as for Akers, so that judgment could be given for or against him, as otherwise the proceedings could in any case again be brought against Akers personally on his return to New Zealand. Counsel submitted that on the facts adduced there was no sufficient memorandum of sale effected by plaintiff to bind Hewitt and thus entitle plaintiff to his commission.

Mr Moore argued that the correspondence with Hewitt an 1 his solicitor constituted a sufficient memorandum of the sale to satisfy the requirements of the Statute and that the non-completion of the purchase was entirely dire to the defendant’s failure to pay the pur - chase money. After hearing argument, the Magistrate adjourned the case to enable further correspondence bearing on the point to be produced.