AN AUCTIONEER’S CLAIM.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3127, 25 January 1911, Page 9

AN AUCTIONEER’S CLAIM.

SALE OF FURNITURE,

Messrs F. S. Malcolm and Co. brought an action against Mary Berry at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, to recover commission on account of an arrangement for the sale of defendant’s furniture, which defendant failed to carry out. Mr. Burnard appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Bright for defendant. F. S. Malcolm stated that about a fortnight ago he heard that defendant had sold her property and wanted to sell her furniture. He called upon her, and two days later she visited him at his office, and requested him to arrange for the sale. He accordingly took an inventory of all the furniture, and made arrangements for holding the sale on the following Wednesday. Defendant’s husband also agreed. _ The cost of advertising was 12s, arid"'witness estimated Ins commission oh defendant’s furniture at between £3 and £4, but with other property lie proposed to sell at the sale it would have amounted to between £5 and £lO. He noticed two advertisements in the paper, and on inteirviewing defendant’s _ husband he ascertained that instructions had previously been given ; to Messrs Miller and Craig to. sell the furniture. He was not aware that Messrs Miller and Craig’s commission only totalled £2 16s 6d, 'and that the sale only realised £2B 4s 6d. Geo. Iv. Miller, # of the firm of Miller and Craig, auctioneers, produced an account of the sale, the commission on which was £2 16s 6d. He received instructions to. sell the property on December loth. No definite date was fixed for the sale, pending the disposal of defendant’s house property. On January 2nd he was definitely instructed to sell. William Berrv, husband of defendant, said that plaintiff interviewed him regarding two advertisements. Plaintiff offered,' upon the payment of 10s, to withdraw his advertisement. The Magistrate held that plaintiff was instructed to sell, and he was entitled to commission (which the Court fixed a.t £2 16s 6d), plus the cost of advertising. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for £3 8s 6d, and costs £1 13s.