RULES CHALLENGED

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 990, 5 June 1930, Page 12

RULES CHALLENGED

LAND AGENTS.’ DISPUTE OVER COMMISSION SALE OF AN HOTEL Certain rules of the Auckland Real i Estate Institute governing members : were challenged in the Supreme Court today in an action in which two city , land agents were litigants. The suit, which was brought by j Wenzl Scholium against F. Kay-Stra*- . ton for £IOB commission, arose from j the sale of the Masonic Hotel, Opotiki, ! in May last year. Mr. Towle represented the plaintiff and Mr. Northcroft appeared for the defendant. The sole agency for the sale of the hotel was claimed to be in Scholium’s hands, and Kay-Stratton had a prospective buyer. It was claimed that an arrangement was made, that in event of a sale being effected, plaintiff should share in the commission. When the deal was completed Scholium applied to 1 the Real Estate Institute of Auckland to help him enforce his claim, and the * institute arbitrated on the issue, and held that plaintiff was entitled to his share of the commission. The defence was that there had been no agreement by Kay-Stratton to submit to arbitration, and that no money was owing. The issue was largely governed by the rules of the Real Estate Institute, which provided for the settlement of disputes between members, by arbitration, according to Mr. Both litigants were members of the institute, and he contended, that although it was now known that Kay-Stratton was an incorporated company, defendant was bound by the rules, having been elected personally. At the institute meeting, although Kay-Stratton did not consent to arbitration, he crossexamined Scholium, who gave evidence on oath. His Honour: What power has tiie institute to take evidence on oath? “They seem to have more power than the Privy Council,” observed Mr. Northcroft. After the award was made, continued Mr. Towle, Kay-Stratton tendered his resignation to the institute. Counsel contended that defendant's letters to the institute and the fact he participated in the proceedings constituted an oral consent. Mr. Northcroft said the defence would challenge the efficacy of the rules. Walter James Potter, president of the Real Estate Institute last year, who presided at the arbitration proceedings, said he had ruled the institute’s rules provided for hearing the case and making an award. Cross-examined, Potter said that Scholium gave evidence on oath, but Kay-Stratton declined to testify on oath, though he gave his version of the transaction. Defendant would not sign a document agreeing to arbitration. (Proceeding.)