A COMMISSION CASE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10207, 7 April 1911, Page 7

A COMMISSION CASE.

FRASER v. CRUICKSHANK

THE PLAINTIFF NONSUITED

J A case was heard in the Magistrate's Court at Masterton yesterday, in which John Eraser, land agent, claimed from William Hort Cruickshank, land agent, the sum of £35. The statement of claim" was to the effect that defendant engaged plaintiff at an agreed remuneration of £35 to inspect and plot the subdivision of, value and report on the Castlepoint Estate. The plaintiff did the necessary work between the Bth and 13th of September, 1910, and had not been paid. He claimed that £35 was a- reasonable remuneration, and sought to recover that amount. i Mr C. A. Pownali appeared for plaintiff, and Mr P. L. Hollings for defendant. Harold Hastings Pavitt gave written evidence to having plotted and planned the subdivision. Eraser and Cruickshank discussed the suitability of boundaries of the several allotments, and Eraser stated what he thought should be asked for each. Both witness and Eraser understood that the property had to be sold at an average of £4 10s per acre. The arrangement made with the former was that if the property was sold as required by the vendors he was to get the survey fees, but if not sold, he was to get nothing. He took the , principal instructions as to the sub- ' division from plaintiff, who told him he was to get £35 or £4O whether the place was sold or not. John Fraser, the plaintiff in tne case, stated that the defendant inter- ' viewed witness on September 7th, 19id, with regard to the estate, which ( contained 16,535 acres. Arrangements were made for plaintiff to cut up the estate to average £4 10s per acre. At the time plaintiff said the price was very high from his previous knowledge of the estate. The last Government valuation of the property was £42,600, and at £4 10s per acre the total would be £74,461. Plaintiff gave his fee as thirty-seven guineas, but it was subsequently arranged that lie should receive £35. Tilie valuing was done on the Bth, 9th, and 10th, in company with Mr Pavitt and defendant. On the 11th plaintiff was in the company of the head shepherd. Five subdivisions were made, and the land was offered for sale. D. J. Cameron, sheep farmer, who had at times done valuing work, stated that £35 was only a fair sura for the work done. ...This concluded the evidence for the plaintiff. William Hort Cruickshank, defendant, stated that the owners of the estate had placed the property in his hands for sale, stipulating the average price at £4 10s per acre. An arrangement was made with Pavitt, who was to reeivce no pay if the property was not sold. Fraser agreed to come out and assist witness. The latter agreed to pay plaintiff £35 in the event of the property being sold, and nothing if the property was not sold. It was also agreed that if Fraser introduced any purchasers he would receive a liberal share of commission. Fraser was in the habit of visiting defendant, who explained several things to the former in connection with a commission agency business. Defendant also obtained an insurance agency for plaintiff. Witness had the property in his hands for one month, but bo never cffcct'.'danv sale.

Cross-examined by Mr Pownali, defendant said his shaVe would have realised £IOOO or over if "the property was all sold. No register was taken of the agreement with regard to payment.

His Worship nonsuited plaintiff, with costs amounting to £4 12s.