A LOAN TRANSACTION.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10146, 16 December 1910, Page 6

A LOAN TRANSACTION.

CLAIM FOK COMMISSION.

A claim was heard in the Magistrate's Court at Maaterton yesterday J by Mr L. G. Reid, S.M., in which' John Robert JNicol, .'and agent cf Masterton, sued Walter George Carey, of Konini, Pahiatua, for the sum of £3O, balance of commission alleged t<> be due in respect of a sale of property comprising 242 acres at Balance. Mr C. A. Fcwnall appeared for the plaintiff, and Dr. Irimble for defendant. Mr Pownall stated that the whole question was one of credibility and of whether, when the £45 was paid, theie was an agreement that the balance of £3O should be paid according to the terms stated. Sidney Richard Edwards, partner i'n the firm of Nicol and Co., land agents, gave evidence as to the sale of Carey's property a* Ballance, and to the effect that the commission agreed upon was £75. The commission at the usual rate of two and ahalf per cent, would have been £ll2, but defendant "beat them down" to £75, which they agreed to accept. When it came to a settlement, they only received £*s, Carey stating that he would either buy another farm through the agency of claimants or pay the balance of £3O. Subsequently defendant purchased another property at Pahiatua, but through another agent. To date defendant had not purchased any property through the agency of claim r I ants, and they claimed the £3O in consequence. John Robert Nicol corroborated the evidence of the previous witness, and stated that he had authorised him to take the reduced terms provided that Carey purchased another property through their agency. Dr. Trimble stated that his client admitted the agreement at the outset to pay £75 in the event of a sale of the property at £22 per acre or an exchange. The sale had been effected, but only at £lB 10s per acre, and in consequence his client stipulated that only £4O commission should be paid, which was subsequently amended to £45. Defendant dented that any stipulation as to a subsequent payment of £3O had been made, and held that Edwards had agreed to accept £45. A clause had been put in the agreement to the effect that the £3O should be paid, but his, it was alleged, had not been done in defendant's presence, and was not initialled by him. Walter George Carey, defendant, gave-evidence as to the sale of the property, stating that the clause in respect of tne £3O had not been in-, serted in his presence, and that, in view of the fact that he had only recieved £lB 10s per\acre, he had only* agreed to pay £45 commission. In cross-examination he denied that the reduction had only been made on the condition of his purchasing another, property through the agency of claimant. He denied also ha\ing agreed to purchase another property through the agency of claimant. His Worship said there was a conflict of testimony in the case. It appeared to him, however, that it had been agreed that the sum to belaid in commission on the reduced price of the land was £45. It was alleged that a special agreement had been made in writing for the payment of an extra £3O, out the alteration in the document was neither signed nor initialled by the defendant. The extra £3O appeared to be subject to a future sale. The plaintiffs would be nonsuited with £2 2s counsel's fee, and 6s lOd witness' .expenses.