A COMMISSION CASE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXV, Issue 28, 1 February 1913, Page 8

A COMMISSION CASE.

AND A LAND AGENT’S CLAIM. At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning, before Mr. Kenrick, S.M., an interesting commission case was partly heard, when the D.0.A., in the bankrupt estate of James Hodge, claimed from John Wilks, of Brecon Road, Stratford, the sum of £B6 Us 6d, as balance due on commission. Mr. Cecil Wright (Wake and Wright) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cyril H. Croker (W. G. Malone) for the defendant. Mr. Wright said that ho thought Mr. Croker was prepared to admit insolvency, that Hodge was still insolvent, and that the D.O.A. was the proper plaintiff. Mr. 'Croker: That is so.

Mr. Wright was then given permission to amend the statement of claim, making the amount sued for £69. In his opening address, counsel foi the plaintiff said the ease was a sim pie one. He thought Mr. Croker would admit that there, was a sale; that this was owing to the instrumentality of Hodge. Wilks had paid £J‘L and he had also paid in some way or other £B, making a total of £SO, which, Mr. Wilks said was the full commission claimed. Plaintiff claimed that certain definite statements were made by Wilks, with regard to commission, and that he (plaintiff) was suing on the ordinary rate of commision—per cent, on the freehold of 192 acres, and 5 per cent, on the good will of the leasehold, the lease of which the other side would admit, had a

compulsory purchasing clause in it. That transaction was carried through by Hodge. He called James Hodge, land agent Stratford, who deposed that he was instrumental in carrying through an exchange between another party and Willis, and on this exchange the freehole! land was taken as being worth £2196, and the leasehold at £5 an acre goodwill, being 22/ acres at £1135. Prior to this transaction Wilks gave him authority to try and find a purchaser for both properties. When the properties were put into his hands there was nothing said abou commission, only that Mr. Wilks would pay the usual commission. It was a long time before he (witness could get any purchaser. Wilks hac said more than once that he wishec to get rid of it, because it was a bur /den to him, or words to that effect. Defendant asked witness to press at much as he possibly could, and said that if he could get rid of it he would not mind giving a little over and above the ordinary commission. Witness con tinned that as far as he knew, the or binary rate of commission was 2-J pei cent.

His Worship: As far as you know: Witness: It is what we’ve always charged. His Worship; Right through ? Witness: Two and a half per cent c or the first £2OOO. Witness went on to say that on tin goodwill of a lease with a purchasing clause in it, it was usual to charge i per cent. His Worship; What do you mean by “on the goodwill?” Witness: The lease had a compulsory purchasing clause. The land solci for £l3 an acre, of which £8 went tr too lessor. Commission v as charged a; 5 per cent, on the goodwill—that is on the £5 per acre. His Worship: You speak of an exchange', Mr. Wright ? Mr. Wright: Those properties were not sold for cash.

Mr. Croker: I will make that point vary clear to your Worship in my cross-examination. Mr. Wright; With regard to the claim, Mr. Hodge, you give credit foi cash and other things received to tin extent of £SO, and you claim the difference of £69. Now, you know the D.O.A. has not received any of that money ? At this stage Mr. Kenrick said he must adjourn the case to the next sitting. Counsel for the defendant objected to the adjournment. His client was a poor man, and witnesses had had to be summoned from a very long way. Their expenses would have to be paid, and it would mean a difference of some £lO to the party which lost. The ease, however, was then adjourned till next Friday.