RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Issue 1531, 30 January 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Before H. M'Cttlloch, Esq., R.M.

Monday, 29th jAinjAßr.

SHIP DESEETION.

John Fulford, an artioled seaman, belonging to the barque Free Trader, was brought up charged with the above-named offence.

In answer to the Bench the master of the barque stated that the accused had previously attempted to desert. His conduct, which had as a rule been good, had latterly been but very in« different. He (the master) would not object to take him back if he promised to behave better. The prisoner, who pleaded guilty, complained of bad treatment, and if taken back instead of being sent to gaol, would only promise better behaviour on condition that he was treated better.

The magistrate said fchat aa he (prisoner) had the option of going back to the ship, but refused to conduct himself properly, it left no alternative but to send him to goal. He was sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment, leaving it to the option of the master to take him back when the vessel sailed. CIVII CASH. Macrorie v. Swale. — Plaintiff, an auctioneer, sued defendant for commission on sale of property, of which the following are particulars : Property sold for £700— Commission 5 per cent, on £500 ... £25 0 0 Do 2i per cent, on £200 ... 5 0 0 £30 0 0 Mr Wade appeared for plaintiff and Mr Harvey for defendant. The facts of the case are these. In the month of August last, application was made to plaintiff by Mr Gaw for a site for erecting a manufactory. Knowing defendant's property was in the nurket, plaintiff applied to him on the subject. Defendant stated that he would dispose of the property for a sum of £700, exclusive of charges. Plaintiff

failed in completing arrangements with G-aw for the purchase, and on communicating that fact to defendant, some farther negotiations took place between him and plaintiff about getting it disposed of. These resulted in an understanding being come to that plaintiff might dispose of the property at £700 clear of all expenses, and that" his (plaintiff's) commission, &c, was to be defrayed out of any sum over and above that amount he miaht succeed in getting. Subsequently a Mr Gohl applied to plaintiff about the purchase of a property, and on his (plaintiff's) recommendation, Gohl was induced to irspect it. He afterwards applied to him (Mr Macrorie) to know the price. Mr Maerorie himself being absent, his clerk told him that the price asked was about £700, but that he (Gohl) had better see Maororie himself. Afterwards, on meeting Mr Macrorie, Mr Gohl was told that the price was £735. At a still later date, Gohl applied direct to defendant, and certain negotiations on the point were entered into. Before anything had been concluded, defendant called upon plaintiff and complained that he (plaintiff) had damaged the sale of the property by asking too high a figure. The sale was then concluded between Gohl and Swale for £600. Plaintiff applied for his commission on the transaction, contending that he had introduced the purchaser and was therefore entitled to ba compensated in conformity with the particulars set forth above. No special arrangement having bee* made about commission, plaintiff contended that he was entitled to charge in conformity with the rate fixed by the Invercargill Chamber of Commerce. The provision made by the Chamber on that point was 5 per cent, on Bales up to £600, and 21 per cent, on sales above that amount. Counsel for the plainti ff maintained that that provision meant that 5 per cent, was chargeable on all sums up to £500, and 2£ per oent» on all sums above that amount. In support of that view- it was argued that any other construction wonld give a less commission for £600 than on a sale for £500. Messrs Gibbs, Jslack»ok> Perkins, and Martin were examined as to tttfr usages of the trade under similar circumstances, after which the Bench found that the property had been placed in plaintiff's hands for -Bale at £700, over and above commission and other expanses. That stipulation was to govern; the transaction. Macrorie found the purchaser, and gave him all the necessary information regarding the property. The price at first was stated on behalf of Macrorie at about £700, but subsequently it was fixed by Macrorie himself at £735. G-ohl, the purchaser, then went to Swale, and ultimately the purchase is concluded for £600. Swale then goes down to Macrorie, and as he stated himself, takes the property out of his hands. Now it is plain, according to his (defendant's) own showing, that it must have been in his hands for sale, otherwise it could not have been taken out of his hands. The withdrawal had not been clearly proved, nor did it matter very much, aa it was not a material point in the case. The commission agent had iound the customer, and after having done so, it was too late to withdraw the property out of his hands. Swale having sold the property for -£600, plaintiff waa undoubtedly entitled to receive commission on the amount of the transaction. "With respect to the rate of charge for commission, he (the Magistrate) could only allow what was stated in the rules laid down by the Chamber of Commerce, viz., 2£ per cent on all transactions above £500. The verdict would therefore be for 2$ per cent on £600, making the judgment £15, together with costs.