COMMISSION CASE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIV, Issue 88, 9 December 1912, Page 7

COMMISSION CASE.

AN OPUNAKE HEAL HEHEAiiSED.

PLA! N TIFFS N ON-S FITF I)

111 the Opunake Court, last week before CM r A. Crooke, S.M., argument was heard in tiie ease (I. Newsliam v. John Sinclair, claim £3O as commission on sale of property belonging to Air Sinclair, of Upua, Opunake. Mr McDavitt for plaintiff ami Mr Anderson (Stratford) for defendant. Mr McDavitt, in opening the case, said defendant had placed the sale of his property in Mr New■sham’s hands to effect a sate at £8 and afterwants at £7 10s per acre. Air Newsham introduced a number of prospective purchasers, who went as far as offering £7. Subsequently he introduced Mr Fennell who, on account of something he had heard in the Loan and M.A. Co.’s office, purchased the property at £0 an acre. Being the actual agent who first introduced Air Fennell he was entitled to the commission on the sale.

Evidence was given by CL Newsham, land agent and cattle dealer, who stated that Air Sinclair, defendant placed his property in his hands to sell at £8 per acre. The first person lie introduced did not do any business. He next saw Air Fennell who said that £7 10s was too ranch. He then sav. Mr Sinclair, and asked him to come down. He agreed to come down tc £7. He then heard that Air Sinelaii qffered the land to Mr Hickey for £0 Plaintiff told Mr Sinclair not'to sell it for £6 because he could get £0 for ii from Air Fennell. His commission was 2|- per cent on £I4OO. L. E. Jackson, manager of the Loan and M.A. Co., stated that he remembered the transaction between Fennel; and himself. The property was sole at £6 per acre; the acreage amounted to about 240 acres and the sale was effected through the Loan and Ai.A. Co.

Michael Fennell, farmer, sworn, stated; He came into Opunake about the end of April or beginning of May. Ho was met by Mr Newsham, who asked him “how would Sinclair’s place do?” “At what price?” witness asked. “£7 10s” replied Newsham. “Too much,” said witness, “don’t want it.” , To Mr Anderson: Mr Newsham was the first man to speak to him about Sinclair’s place. Mr Anderson : Did you agree or state anything to imply, that you would purchase P Witness: No, not at £7 10s.

Mr Anderson: Did Mr Newsham speak to you about the sale of tin place at £O. Witness: Did not see Newsham again until after the sale. To his Worship: Was quite sure he never saw Newsham when the land came down. Never heard Newsham say ho could got the land for him at £G. Mr Anderson asked his Worship; Have I a case to answer? His Worship: Better go on with the case.

Mr Anderson said that it was not necessary to be the first introducer tc effect a sale. Newsham’s introduction had effected no sale. He quoted from Gazette L. 8., page 371, wherein Judge Cooper quoted the judgment of Lopes in Barnett v. Brown (6 7 lull. p. 463). In that case there was, as here, the conflicting claims o( two agents. One agent introduced the property to the ultimate purchaser, but his introduction had nc result. The other afterwards effected a sale of the same property to the same person, and it was held that the last-mentioned agent was entitled to the commission. Lord .Justice Lopes mentioned that there mighl be fifty introductions, and that the real question was whose introduction brought about the result. On the question of remuneration, Mr Anderson argued that remuneration can hi claimed only in transactions which art the direct consequence of the agency, and quoted Halsbury’s Laws of England (v. 1, p. 194 5). It therefore follows that where, several agents art concerned in negotiating a transaction between the principal and a particn lar third party, the agent entitled tr remuneration is not necessarily the agent who first introduces the busi ness to him, but the agent who is tin effective cause of the transaction he ing completed.

Mr Anderson did not think it neces sary to call evidence, but as certain statements had been made by M: Newsham, he would put the defendant in the witness box who will give e denial to the assertions. John Sinclair, of Hamilton, late of Opua, sworn, said: He had placed the hind in the hands of Mr Newshair and the Loan and M.A.. Co. at £1 10s. He afterwards reduced the price, finally at £6 an acre. Ho gavr notice to both agents on the 11th May that he would sell at £6 per acre Mr Newsham never stated to witness that he could get a buyer at £6 pei acre. That price was never mentioned before a sale was effected. After further argument plaintiff wa: non-suited.—Abridged from the Opu nake Times.