RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XII, Issue 232, 1 October 1877, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

[Before L. Broad, Esq., R.M.] ADGARDE V. GOULAND. Action to recover £50 for service done in connection with the sale of the Yellaton Run Mr Fell appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Acton Adams for defendant. H. J. L. Augarde: Iv December, 1875, Mr Gouland spoke to me about tha Yellaton RunHe said Sharp and Pickering had been unable to sell it, and he wanted me to undertake it I was to sell it for £1350, and to get the odd £50 aa the commission, and I was to spend as Uttle as possible in advertising. I spent about £9 in advertising. I used my best endeavors to dispose of tha rnn, and sent two or three gentlemen to Mr Gouland about it Mr Ross was in treaty about it, and ultimately bought it, but uot through me. Cross-examined: Mr Gouland did not stipulate that I was to get rio commission unless I sold. I was told not to spend much on advertising. He frequently asked me abont the run, but never said that he had placed it m the hands of Messrs Adams and Kingdon for salo. Had he done so I should have taken no more trouble about it. This was the case for the plaintiff. Por the defendant Mr Adams called Henry Gouland, who stated: In December 1875, 1 anthorised Mr Augarde to sell the run, and offered to give him the regular commission if he sold it, but nothing if he did not. I told him distinctly that the advertising was to be paid for out of the commission, and that uuieas he sold he was to get nothing. By the Bench: Messrs Adams and Kingdon were asked to sell at the same time as Mr Augarde. In March last I told them they might sell for £1050, which they did in April. I did not tell Augarde of the reduction iv price. Cross-examined: I did not think it necessary to inform Mr Augarde of the reduction in pnce, but I told him when it was sold to prevent his taking further trouble. Counsel having addressed the Bench, His Worship said there could be no doubt that Mr Augarde was the agent for the sale, while at the same time another agent was instructed to sell at a lower rate. There was some discrepancy iv the evidence of the two parties, defendaut sayiug that Augarde was to get nothing unless he sold, which was denied by Augarde. Still, it appeared to him that Augarde was the authorised agent, and as such was entitled to some remuneration. His offer to the defendant to settle the matter for £10 10s appeared a reasonable one, and he should give judgment for that amount with costs £3 7s.