SALE OF A FARM AT MOTU.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3324, 16 September 1911, Page 2

SALE OF A FARM AT MOTU.

RIGHTS TO THE COMMISSION.

AN INTERESTING DISPUTE

A clai m by Sim son and Hill, land agents, Gisborne, against W. B. Chennolis and Co.. Mastertom, for £2O 12s Gd, being half, commission received by defendants on a sail© of 1210 acres at IVlotu by plaintiff Simsioiii’s son. to Shut© Brets. ou> January 10, 1910, engaged the attention of Mr. Barton, -S.M.J tor several hours yesterday. Mr. Stock appeared for plaintiffs; Mr. Burnard for defendants; and Mr. Coileman for Mr. S. Baker, who was interested in the proceeds of the commission. lan S. Simson in evidence said that his son Arthur was the owner 0.l a property at Motu. On account of the Land Board. insisting upon compliance, with the residence clause lie. desired toi have the property sold. Mr. Baker cam© to him (plaintiff), and informed lmr that lie was acting as agent for defendants, and had a likely buyer for tho property. He gave Baker particulars, and .subsequently defendants sent up Mr. Shute, who ultimately purchased the property. When Shut© came to* Gisborne Mr. Hill saw him, and arranged foi; him to be taken over the property, and on account of Mr. Hill’s services ho considered plaintiffs were entitled to their commission. To Mr. Burnard: There was no agreement between "plaintiffs and defendants that plaintiffs were to receive half commission. They based their claim on wlrat they considered was a fair thing and on a letter (of which. lie had no pv) which they had written, bo tho defendants, lie agreed that Baker was entitled to something, and thought that defendants should pay him something out of their half share. He had sent wires toi defendants that lie did not know Baker in the matter, but this meant that Baker had not brought about this particular sale. After further evidence had been given in support of the claim, Mr. Burl.ard, for defendants, moved for a nonsuit bin the grounds—•(!). that the plain; tiffs could only succeed in the event el a contract being proved, and that no contract, express or implied, to pay any share of the commission had been proved against defendants; and (2) that time was no - privity of contract between plaintiffs and defendants, the negotiations between the parties having taken place between Mr. la,ni Sunsou personally and defendants, and not between plaintiffs and defendants. These points were reserved. II Greenfield, called on behalf of the defendants, stated that he was in their employ at the time. Mr McLeod; of MasteVtoni, had visited Gisborne, and on his return had reported that the property was for sale, and that particulars could be obtained from Baker. Defendants at once wrote to Baker for details, and offering half commission on any sale. They received a reply m Mr. I S. Simson’*; handwriting, addressed to Baker, giving the particulars. They submitted the property to several people, and in December, 1910, sent Shute to Gisborne to inspect the property. After he returned to Master ton, they closed the deal. Mr. Simson made no claim for half commission until the sale had been effected. The claim- mentioned Baker’s right, and appeared to suggest a division of tho commission between plaintiffs, Baker, and defendants. There was no agreement! that plaintiffs should receive any commission. Defendant looked upon the property as being practically I. S. Simson’s for the purposes of dealing. , , To Mr. Stock: Witness had written after receiving particulars of two further properties from plaintiffs that they expected* to receive full commission m the event-of the sale of such properties. That was to make it perfectly clear that Baker was not to share in the commission on tire new properties.. They were paying him half commission on this deal. ' . 1 Evidence was allso given for defendante by Philip Sheridan., Sciniucl Bukgi , and Bernard Redstone. His .Worship rteserved lus decision.