LAND AGENTS FALL OUT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXX, Issue 16, 5 September 1914, Page 7

LAND AGENTS FALL OUT.

CLAIM FOR COMMISSION. At the Court yesterday morning G. \V. Hartnell and Co. (Mr H. C. Wright) proceeded against J. H. Thompson to recover ils, alleged to be due for commission on sales ol land. Before Mr Wright opened Mr Stanford said that the plaintiff's statement of claim did not disclose a cause of action, and if plaintiff applied later on to vary the statement of claim he (Mr Stanford) would claim an adjournment. T, W. Welsh gave evidence that on April 7th, iPiii, he and Mr Hartnell commenced in business in New Plymouth as laud agents under the style of Hartnell and Co." Hartnell was a builder in a large way, commonly called a speculative builder, it was part of tile arrangement between the parties that in consideration of Hartnell placing the whole of his purchases and sales and land transactions generally in the hands of G. VV. Hartnell and Co., the lirm, which was to be managed by witness, would attend to tlie book-keeping of ins building business. Witness notified other land agents ox the starting of the hrm, and verbally agreed with tiiem that in deals between them and witness’ hrm, including Hartnell’s work, the customary conditions would prevail. In straight-out sales the commission would be divided and in case of exchanges the commission would be pooled and divided. On October 20th, amongst other things, Hartnell and Co. wrote to Thompson that they had £iIUOU in second mortgages which they were prepared to place on unencumbered Stratford sections. On August sth the hrm wrote to Thompson, requesting him in future to address letters on laud business to Hartnell and Co. and not to G. W. Hartnell. Witness inspected the laud bought from Barleyman’s estate and on his recommendation Hartnell purchased it. It was clearly understod between Thompson and witness that the commission would be halved between Thompson and Hartnell and Co. The agreement was made soon after the hrm of Hartnell and Co. came into existence.

To shorten proceedings Mr Stanford admitted that one straight-out sale and four exchanges took place between Thompson and Hartnell and Co. Witness continued that he had applied to Thompson for a statement of affairs up to the end of last year between Thompson and Hartnell and Co. and Thompson forwarded to Hartnell personally an account for commission which showed a balance of £34 in Thompson’s favor. Witness saw Thompson, who said that if witness would get a cheque for the whole amount or a cheque for a part and a promissory note for the remainder he would be able to discount the p.n. and he would then make rip a statement of the total commissions from both sides and send it to Hartnell and Co. together with a cheque. Hartnell gave a p.n. at three months instead of a cheque. Witness frequently asked Thompson for the statement, but every time Thompson said he was unable to get Hartnell’s p.n. discounted. The p.n. was given in February. In May witness again asked for the statement, but Thompson said he did not know if the p.n. had been paid. In July witness wrote to Thompson asking for the statement and setting out information lie had gleaned as to commissions paid by the other parties in the deals. Later witness drew on Thompson, but the draft was returned unpaid. After that Thompson said that the only arrangement between them was for him to pay to Hartnell and Co. half the commission paid by Hartnell to Hartnell and Co. Witness did a good deal of work in connection with the deals. Witness inspected the land for Hartnell.

This closed the case for plaintiffs. Mr Kenrick, S.M., said he must hold that an agreement to divide commission had not been proved. Plaintiff had written several letters hut had all along neglected to make any statement on the matter. Plaintiff, therefore, must he non-suited. On the general question of land agency business his Worship said that nowadays all land agents were presumed to he business men and to deal with the affairs of other people in a business-like manner. Unless there was a clear state-

ment of the arrangement for the pay-

meat of commission the time of the Court would be unnecessarily taken up in straightening out the affairs of land agents.

Mr Wright protested against the case closing without him being heard or defendant being put in the witnessbox; but the S.M. said he had thoroughly made up his mind. At a certain point in plaintiff’s evidence he had made up his mind that plaintiff could not succeed unless some further evidence was given and he could not see how that evidence could possibly be given.

A non-suit was accordingly entered, with costs £2 2s.