POLICE COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXIII, Issue 285, 3 December 1901, Page 2

POLICE COURT.

Monday, D camber 2nd.—Before Mr L, L.Stanford, S.M.

CLAIM FOB COMMISSION. J. M. Hignett v. J. Sargeant. This was a claim for £35 com mission on salti of propwty for defendant at Waitaru.

Mr Kerr for p'aintiff, and Mr Weston for defendant.

The evidence which had already been given was to the effect that plaintiff negotiated with Mrs Marsh for the purchase of the land at .£435, communicating the ficfc to the defendant, who, however, subsequently came to terms with Mrs Marsh direct for .£4OO. For plaintiff it was contended that he had secured a purchaser for the property at £435, and as his commission was to be whatever sum was agreed to be paid over £4OO, he claimed £35. The defence was that there was nothing in writing between the parties t<> the action, and tbat plaintiff was bo'; a commission agent, and did not act as, such in connection with the sale. Counsel on both sides addressed the Court at some length. His Worship said he had no doubt as to the conclusion at which he had arrived, Plaintiff's and defendant's evidence was direcly contradictory. Plaintiff in his evidence gave a plain .straightforward account of the transaction, and as t.> the terms on which he undertook the business for defendant. As to plaiotiff not being a commission agent, any one in the street could act in chat capacity. Mrs Marsh's letter of inquiry as to terms showed she looked upon H'gnett as Sergeant's agent, as did her wire to Hignett a week afterwards stating she would take tho property. It was evident that at thit time Hignett saw Sergeant. : All through the whole business Hignett's story hung to gether, and was always consistant with the facta, being corroborated in its vital particulars by Baker, and there was no reason to suppose that Biker was at all in collusion with Hignett. On the other hand Mrs Marsh's evidence was very unsatisfactory, The conclusion which his Worship arrived at was tbat Hignett bad fairly earned his commies'on. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £35, and costs £& 6s.