Manawatu Standard (PUBLISHED DAILY.) The Oldest Daily Newspaper on the West Coast. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1884. AUCTIONEERS' RISKS.

Manawatu Standard, Volume VIII, Issue 139, 22 November 1884, Page 2

Manawatu Standard (PUBLISHED DAILY.) The Oldest Daily Newspaper on the West Coast. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1884. AUCTIONEERS' RISKS.

The case of Grammar v. Halcombe and Sherwill, which was tried m the Palmerston Resident Magistrate's Court, on Thursday, is one of no small importance, inasmuch as the decision given by Mr Ward, R.M., throws quite a new light upon the position which auctioneers occupy withregard to the selling and purchasing public. It appears that Mr Goodison entered a buggy for sale at an auction which was held by Messrs H alcombe and Sherwill, at Ashurst. Mr Grammar bid for and purchased the buggy, but was soon afterwards' served with a summons to give up ipossession of it to other parties, who claimed to be the real owners of the vehicle. It was contended then that Goodison had no title to it what!ever,and consequently had no power tp confer a title upon any one else. jVfr Grammar, finding he could no longer detain the buggy , seems to have given it up, and then instituted proceedings against the auctioneers, Messrs Halcombe and Sherwjm,, for the recovery of the purchase money which he had paid for the same, holding, that since he had bought the article from them, it was their duty to guarantee his title to it. His Worship held that the auctioneers, by not revealing the name I of the owner of the buggy at the

time of sale, had themselves virtually become the vendors, and thus the responsibilities of title had fallen upon their shoulders, and judgment for the plaintiff' was given accordingly. If this case is to establish a precedent, auctioneers must conclude that, m future, the title to all stock, goods, land and other articles, 01 property which passes through their hands at public auction, must be guaranteed by themselves to the purchasers, m all cases where the name of the actual vendors is not stated. That is to, say, if the auctioneer wishes to sell without risk, he 'must delare himself m each transaction as the agent of a stated principal, and if he does not do so, he takes upon himself the onus of any risks that may be attendant upon such sales. In the case of Grammar y. Halcombe and Sherwill, we believe it was clearly proved that Mr Goodison had actually divulged to Mr Grammar his alleged ownership of the buggy* and that Mr Grammar m consequence purchased it with a definite knowledge ; of the vendor, which may possibly ultimately form the; grounds for an appeal to a higher Court. However, appeal or no ;ap-i peal, the fact remains unchallenged that, according to Mr Ward's ruling, if an auctioneer wishes to sell without incurring personal liabili tyi he must divulge the name df his client, the vendor, at thetime of -safer"*"** t-iilo la- <*■ muat important ■matter to consider. No careful; man of business, who perhaps puts; stock through his yards to the value of .£SOOO or .£6OOO per month or' more, would be justified m making; himself responsible for the bona fides of all of them. We believe no firm WiOiild do so. The alternative , is, therefore,- that the names of all sellers of stock must be notified at all sales, and the results o£ doing that, we believe, will not prove conducive jto the interests of buyer, seller, or salesman. This is only looking upon the matter m connection with sales of stock and produce. But how much more intense does the responsibility become when large landed estates are being handled. Where land is held under the provisions of the Land Transfer Act, the chances of accidents would, of course, be very nominal, since the title could hardly be mistaken. But m a property tljiat has been conveyed from one party to another for a number of years, a flaw might very easily be found m the title, and the auctioneer would be pounced upon and perhaps ruined m the struggle to compensate the purchaser for the vendor's errors or shortcomings. To be an auctioneer under these circumstances, a man must be prepared to meet hundreds of unseen. contingencies. He must be content to be made a scapegoat for the sins anddelinquencies of the general trading public. By abolishing public auction sales the public would be considerable losers ; whilst, if the names of vendors are always to be divulged business could sooni cdme to a stand-still. We can scarcely; bring ourselves to believe that' Mr Ward's ruling m this case is" m accordance with law, and few will go so far as to affirm that: the decision accords with the popular view of what constitutes the principle of equity. If the ruling is upheld by law, the sooner such a law is amended the better for all concerned, so that auctioneers could be enabled to submit goods to public auction without either divulging the name of the vendors, or rendering themselves personally liable for any defects m title that might subsequently be discovered. Redress ; should be obtainable, of course, but • from the person who really should be held responsible, viz., the actual vendor, and not the auctioneer. : The amendment required might be | somewhat to this effect, viz., *' That • any person offering goods at public I auction, who is a duly licensed i auctioneer, shall m all cases be deemed to be acting as agent for some principal or third party, and : it shall "riot be necessary for him to j declare his position as agent, or reveal the name of his principal, and the responsibility of guaranteeing the title to the goods shall fall solely and wholly upon that principal, or vendor, and not upon the auctioneer who shall conduct the sale of the same." The: case is a very important one to auctioneers, and m order to affirm a principle and establish a precedent, it is to be hoped that the decision given by Mr Ward will be submitted to the' Court of Appeal, whose ruling should definitely decide the respective risks and responsibilities of vendors and purchasers, and agent or auctioneer.