SECRET COM[?]

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 1, Issue 19, 15 September 1931, Page 4

SECRET COM[?]

(Continued F to^ well agreed tb these no merition o'f 'dbfeji titled; iri th eveht of j ing obtained Siid the pleted, to a commissU dofs. Witness mentioned ' wefelcs : .suhsequeritly L be in Wellington, -whejj him that it wks irre„ to be engagittg in ^ his service work. |je matter with the Puhljc rnissioner who advised were better riot to enga riny such undettaking Guy on the matter, ^ agreeable , to Ashton I witness' shoes. Witney out of tiie. matter excea few shares iri the cot Edwrird Grace Gny the eviderice giveri . L riess with teference toi intervibw with Sawell, absolutely no. mentioij commission . from , the pany. Subsequently % -well . in, Wellirigtto "present. . Witri'ess theii Skwell , that ;Dri. puni ped, out pf the .pi;dni(: Ashton had , taken ovej This po'sitio'ri . was lijj to Sawell. No menti on this occasion, of $ option was obtained ij Ashton. Witness fip a commission had bet fendants by the vec; Mry of this year after 1 the compariy. Prior l no. knowledge whatq commission had been occasion was. ihe payr dor's ebmniissiori' ever was there any refere: cofrimiissibn iri the cofij obtainirig the option, Sawell to' tr y and ge for as low a price as: Ly.onel Geqrgo Asl the Rotorua "Morniij of a cbnversatiori whi between Sawell, Guyj Wellingtori after witr bver Dr. Duncan's it new company. There tion of a vendbr's coir time, in subsequent i Sawell disclose that, j such a commission. I ref erence tb such a cs inade ip the correspoD the parties.

"No Breach oi In moving ,fot j Parry coritended that duty recognisable in proved against defehd His Honour said Sir itely engaged by plait an option at as low i sible, and actual ter J atiori for his work in were agrped upon. M ■ ed that it "would haveB hirii very clearly thatfl khew, in these circn defendarit was goihgB mission from the otbj Sidney James San said that during the fl Guy, Ashton and I)J that his terms were 9 the usual 71 per centl the sale of shares. 9 out to him that the 9 not pay this, and he 9 accept 5 per cent brc9 ed he was perniitteiil possible, a commissio™ dor. He went to Eob9 ed an option from » the price of £10,00(1, 9 til after this thatm'tiB ner that if the busins9 his firm would reqaire9 sion., 9 Gar dn er gave Yfces9 ' dertalcing fo pay the sale being comjM done quite operily iil secrecy. 9 Cross-examined, defl did not regatd thefl9 action of this natoif9 He did not regardl* torua tq .secure an. op9 muneration. He adsfl greater the price tlfl sold for the bigger «9 mission. He had iio9 necessary to mentioa® this commission in 9 ence with pl&iritiffs, 9

Not Pisb>9 Asked why at an9 solicitor's office in Bo9 terms of jaaymertt 19 were discussed, he (i9 close the payment of9 defendant said thersB tinct hranchs of the 9 otte brokerage, the ot9 On that occasiop, bi9 ing discussed. He j9 he had acted disho™ closiftg the fact. 9 . Mr Parry said thel showed that the £59 regarded as an adv9 kerage and the pron concerned with bros® of the business vrhsfB from the sale bf sha9 two distinct ahd 4 ions. If defendatit9 ed this commissioiiB there was nothing9 froni claiming aga|9 Commission on the s9 His Honour said ■ evidence. to show ,|?9 aware that defenaa* a commission froai9 Honour said he ha«9 the matter. Sawell 9 plaintiffs paid to o9 with a view to purcfl jiess. His Honour 9 would be justified ,9 ference that SaweliB the business for atB thari was paid for 9 His Honour heldB Ashton were the 49 gave judgment D9 amount of the 9 plaintiff company ■ w;ho had been ,ad9 dhring' the heariflM from the fiction. Co» on , the middle sea)® Sisbursements to de® gistrar. ,9