A CLAIM FOR COMMISSION.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3336, 30 September 1911, Page 2

A CLAIM FOR COMMISSION.

SALE OF A MOTU PROPERTY. MAGISTRATE DECIDES A DISPUTE. Tlio following is the full text of the judgment in the case of. Simeon and Hill (Mr G. Stock) v. Chennells and Co. (Messrs T. Alston Coleman and Barnard) which was delivered by Mr W. A. Barton, S.M., and which was unavoidably held over yesterday owing to pressure on space:— “The plaintiffs claim to recover from the defendants the sum of £2O 12s 6d upon the following statement of claim: —The plaintiffs claim to recover from the defendants the sum of £2o* 12s 6d, being half commission received by the defendants on a sale of 1210 acres at Motu by Arthur J. Siinson to Messrs Shuts Bros, on 10th January, 1911. Tho short facts of the case are these: Arthur S'imson, a son of one of the plaintiffs, was owner of the title of a section of land situate at Motu, which was placed by tho plaintiff Simeon _in the hands of most of the commission agents in Gisborne for sale, and also m the hands of one Baker, who 'gave particulars of the property to a man named McLeod, a resident of Masterton, who was visiting, this district, and on Ins return to Masterton he mentioned 1 the matter to defendants, who at once communicated with Baker relative thereto and in November, 1910, Baker called upon Simson, one of the. plaintiffs, and showed him a letter which he had received from defendants asking for a list of properties for sale, and Simson thereupon. wrote out a list which.was posted to defendants. Baker admits that Siinson wrote tlie letter giving the particulars of the property, but says that it was written on his (Baker’s) behalf, and Baker says that lie posted the letter himself to defendants. lam of opinion looking at all the surrounding circumstances, that this is a true “statement of the position. It is obvious that the property for the sale of which plaintiffs claim half commission, really belonged to the plaintiff Simson, and that defendants doait with him throughout as being the owner of the property. It is true tliat the title was in the name of Simson the younger, but there can be uo doubt that in reality it belonged to the father. It is perfectly clear to my mind from tho evidence that tlie property was sold by defendants in consequence of information furnished by Baker to McLeod, who communicated it to the defendants, and Baker is clearly entitled to be remunerated for his services. Alfred Greenfield, who was in defendant’s employ at the date of this transaction, and who conducted the business for defendant, says that lie looked upon Simson senior as the principal in the matter, and tho correspondence shows that no claim for commission was made by plaintiffs or either of them until after the completion of the deal. Plaintiff Siinson says that he wrote to defendants in reference to commission prior to the completion of the sale, but against this defendants say that no such letter was received by them, and plaintiffs are unable to produce a copy or any other evidence that such a letter was sent to defendants, and I am of opinion, after reading tlie correspondence, which passed between the parties, that no such letter was sent to defendants. I am satisfied that tlie part which plaintiff took in endeavoring to sell the property was in the position as owner and not as agent for his son, and further, tliat he did not intimate to defendants that ho expected to be paid’ commission until after the property had been sold by the defendants. For the reasons given, judgment will be for the defendants, with costs £2 145.”