THE COURTS. RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VI, Issue 295, 25 September 1873, Page 5

THE COURTS. RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before E. H. Oarew, Esq:, R.M.) Tuesday, 23rd SEPTEMafiB. William' Toloher, charged with allowing thr.ee horses to stray in the township Qn the 7th September, was fined 2Qs and costs of Cuurt, 6s. 6d. Hl3 Worship remarked that, although this was the second offence of the kind, he was unwilling to inflict a heavy penalty, and would make it the same as last ; but if a similar charge were again preferred against the same party, he would inflict the heaviest penalty the law allowed, as the .practice of allowing horses to stray in the town caused serious injury to gardens and fences, and it was necessary to put a stop to'the abuse. ' Samuel Bushellj charged with a similar offeiicei was I also, fined 20s. and costs of Court, 6s 6d." Harrop v. Sutlierland. — This wa3 .an action to recover the sum of £50 being commission upon negotiating the loan of £2000 to the Lawrence Town Council. Mr. Henderson, with Mr. Mouat for plaintiff; Mr. Copland for defendant;. Jonas Hlirrop, sworn, deposed that some time since defendant asked him t«> endeavor to invest some money' for Mm, and he communicated with some parties in town, but did not conclude the investment. In August, defendant asked him to negotiate the loan of £2000 with the Lawrence Town Council as they were offering 6 per cent, and he jcould only get 3 per cent, from the banks. Plaintiff consented to do so, and detailed the various correspondence between himself and the Town Council with regard to the final concluding of the arrangements. During the negotiations, defendant told witness he would be paid for his' trouble. The matter was finally completed on the 9th September, when on the Saturday previous to the 16th, defendant told witness he would see him again about a settlement for the commission. On the 16th he went to defendant's place, and asked him for £50 com- ; mission. Defendant said I was in a great hurry, an,d would not pay it until he saw Mr. Copland. Witness asked him 'if he disputed the account. Defendant replied no ; but would like to see Mr. Copland first. He promised also ta come up the day following and settle it. The same evening witness received a letter from Mr. Copland (produced), stating defendant did not consider he was liable to pay witness-anythirig, as he was em'ployea by the Lawrence Town Council to negotiate the matter.. ' Had been several times to defendant^ place to- sec him upon the matter. Defendant was anxiousduring the whole cime of the negotiation to have his name kept quiet, as he (defendant) was such a miserable looking fellow. He would, not like people to know that Jhe had so muA mil nift/V as he would like to SO on working for another 12 months tlxe same aa at" present. Examined by tha Bench. — No definite percentage was mentioned during the negotiations. Afterthe transactions with the Dunedin markets, defendant asked witness what his charge wonld be, to which he replied, " Wait and we will have a chance to get the money invested." Cross-examined by Mr. Copland. — Plaintiff acted as agent for Mr. Sutherland. The document handed in was a receipt for- £2OOO. After the- matter was placed in Mr. Copland's hands, the plainstiffs principal trouble waa in keeping Mr-. Copland right with the Coporation. • The learned counsel considered- he had been insulted by the witness, and asked for the protection of the Court, but his Worship could not see the occasion- for his interference. By the Bench-. — Made- the charge- of 2\ per cent.,. because he considered it a fair one. ' ' William Hayes, commission agent, gave evidence that wb.en he negotiated a large loan ivith little trouble, he charged '1^ t<? 2r per gent. ; bui in the case of tikueh trouole, charged 2^ percent. Considered the present transaction worth 2 per cent. It is not a usual thing to charge, both lender and borrower, but he had done sohimself m special-cases. By Mr. Henderson. — Had he been acting for* Sutherland^ he would considered 2| per ' cent a, moderate charge frr commission. James Hill, watchmakers said" on- the M>th September, he heard a conversation j between Mr. Harrop and the defendant, j When 1 Sir.-" Harrop asked him if he disputed' ihe account. Defendant replied no. ' Harrop asked him to come up- to Ilia place and see him, which defendant promised to. do. Defendant said Mr. Harrop. need not have been in such a hurry, as all the money had not come from Melbourne. Harrop replied his part of the work was done> and he wanted > hJ3 money. ' -This concluded the case. for. the plaintiff.."!

Mr. Copland addressed the Bench for the defence, and submitted that the main question to decide worild be as to the l<vw or custom of commissions on such transactions. He had not had time to procure evidence as to that matter, and would ask for an adjournment to enable hinr*to do so. He held telegraphic messages to the effect that a lower commission than that charged by the plaintiff was the custom. Mr. Henderson for plaintiff consented to an adjournment upon payment by the other side of the costs of the day, to which Mr. Copland objected, and the case was proceeded with. He submitted that plaintiff, as agent for defendant, should credit him with what had been paid to him on account, and quoted from Smith upon contracts, p. 176, also p. 121. Olof Adam Sutherland, miner, deposed that he was in the habit of calling at Mr. Harrop's shop. Asked him if he could get the interest of the loan made payable in London, and that if the Council accepted the loan he would employ a reapectable solioitor to conduct the busiuess for him. • Went afterwards to Mr. Copland's office and gave him instructions ; he promised to see into the matter. Harrop came to witness' place one day and informed him that the Council had agreed to the loan. Told Mr. Harrop he would withdraw his offer unless the matter was conducted byJVlr. Copland. Had read in the Tuapeka. Times that Mr. Harrop was to receive 1 per cent, from the Corporation. (Witness here read extract from, the newspaper referred to.) After the business had been completed, called at Harrop's shop, and Harrop said he wanted to see him and expected something handsome from him. Told him (plaintiff) he I thought he had done well enough out of him. Some days afterwards, viz., on the 16th inst., Harrop called at witness' place and wanted to hand him an account. Plaintiff asked witness to oall up in the evening. Witness would not take the account, but Harrop put it inside his waistcoat, which he handed him back and said he wonld see Copland about it. Harrop said he had paid Copland £5 on account of the matter. In the evening waa Mr. Copland and told him of the conversation with Hairop. Mr. Copland said ho wonld write to Harrop about the matter. A day or two after received a letter from Mr Mouat threatening to sue for the amount, and after that received [ the summons. Some time before, Mr. Harrop wrote a letter for witness to the Dunedin Corporation about a loan of £800, but he (plaintiff) would not charge him for it. Cross-examined by Mr. Henderson-^-Did not know until the 28th August that Mr. Harrop was acting fop the Corporation. Did not want his (witness*) name to transpire until the matter was closed. Understood when the matter was arranged that the interest would ne payable in London, but found out since it was to be payable in Lawrence, Dunedin, or Melbourne, but was not sura if such was the case* L. C. Holme 3, Town Clerk, deposed that the receipt produced was for £20 paid to Harr p by the Corporation of Lawrence for negotiating the loan to the Council. Mr. Harrop was always considered as agent for the lender. Mr. Harrop had had some trouble in the matter. Witness had bought and sold on commission for some time past, and had received commission from seller and buyer. The Council at the commencement of the negotiations wonld not recognise Mr. Harrop's charge as commission, but aub~ sequently it was agreed to pay it. Edward Herbert, Mayor of Lawrence, deposed that in July last the Corporation advertised to borrow- by tender- £2000-, tenders to be sent m before- a certain date-, but none were received in time . Afterwards several agents offered to negotiate the loan and charge the Corporation the usual commission of 1 per cent." He had their letters to that effect. He heard that Mr. Harrop was prepared to negotiate the loan. Saw j him, and he confirmed the report. Im« mediately afterwards called a meeting of the Finance Committee, who instructed the Town Clerk to- write a letter, which they sent to Mr. Harrop for his signature, and which he signed, the purport of the letter being that Mr. Harrop undertook to negotiate the loan for the Corporation j after which, would have considered Miv Harrop- liable for his offer to lend £2000. The Council at first demurred ib paying a commission to Mr. Harrop, but subsequently agreed to give hum 1 per cent. The reason why the Council agreed to give? the commission was because- Mr. Harrop. refused to take less than the- sura named. During five- years business ia Dunedin he never- charged, two commissions, but sometimes it would occur that parties would agree to divide the payment of the usual commission. It is not considered respectable to take the full commission from both parties. Mr. Copland proposed- to give evidencewhich, was abjected to by Mr. Mouat, andj after much argument pro»»and con., he gave- | evidence to the effect that a few weeksprior- to receiving instructions for prepare ing the deeds for the Corporation loan, hewas solicitor iii a transaction for the borrowing of £3000, secured upon real estate, the charge for which by Mr. Capstick oft Tokomainro was L3oi Mr, Mouat .submitted that this; was: merely hearsay evidence. The witness was asked by Mr.. Mouafe how long he had been .practising, as a bari rister. Witness : Five years^ Mr. Mouat : Have you a wig and gown??' The question wa3 ruled ont of order. Mr. Mouat; Were you admin ed to the-, bai! before commencmg in Otago t The question WA3 waived. By Mr. Mouat- — Have negotiated a. great many loans.. L3OOO was about the* highest ; some were larger. Had experience only as to commission, in the L3ooo* case. Mr. Harrop agreed- that if* Mr. Sutherland did nofe pay witness* charges; he (Harrop) wouM do so. The documentproduced purports to be an agreement by Harrop to pay witness L 5 ss. cosiaintC&sev Sutherland did not do so.. Mr. Copland addressed the- Bench foe the defence at considerable length, urging; that Mr. Harrop had received a sufficient consideration, and thereforfrhis, client was* entitled to- a- judgment., Mr, "Henderson, in summing- up. for the* plaintiff^ quoted from ' ' Harrison's. Digesf" that it was qujte competent for a brokeror agenfi to. take commission, from, each: ! side. i This* concluded] the case,, wiien hi&W'or-w j s&i^ad^oui'hed.his. decision to Jfrijlajrcw'^. ,