Jtjîtb 10, 1899.
THE ESTATES GAZETTE
1006
gcing to receive any commission they certainly should not employ him ; he assured them he was not to have any commission at all. The defendant’s husband called upon witness, who said he must see his wife, the principal.
Mr. Gover said the husband had apparently practised systematic fraud, and what looked very much like forgery, on the plaintiff.
The Recorder, in summing up, said secret commissions were the curse of commercial life.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
WESTMINSTER, COUNTY COURT.
June 5.
(BeforeITisHonour JudgeLtjmleySmith, Q.C.)
BETTING A WEST-END SHOP.
ROBINS, SNELL AND CORE V. HEÏTER.
This was an action by the plaintiffs, Messrs. Robins, Snell and Gore, the well-known him of house agents, carrying on business at 22, Conduit-street, Regent-street, to recover the sum of £42 10s., being commission on the letting of premises at 120, New Bond-street. It appeared from the evidenoe of the plaintiffs’ clerk, that in! February of the present yea¿ his firm introduced defendant HefEer to the premises in question, and he, after some negotiations, agreed to take them. His references were found to be satisfactory, and the matter was almost completed, when a letter was׳ received from his solicitors to the efEect that the lease which the lessors were prepared to grant contained covenants which were unreasonable. The result was that HefEer refused to complete, and the premises were let to Messrs. Harrington, a firm of confectioners, at a lower rental, and an action was brought by the lessors against Htffer to recover damages for the loss sustained on the re-letting to Harrington. That action resulted in the lessors recovering damages against Heifer, but the plaintiffs’ claim was not included in, it. The plaintiff®, however, had. intimated all along that they intended to claim their commission on the ground that they had carried out Heifer’s instructions to find him suitable premises, and that if he chose to back out of his bargain it was no fault of theirs׳.
For the defence, it was contended that no claim was ever made for commission until the plaintiffs found ׳out that damages had been recovered against Heffer in the action brought > against him by the lessors.
After hearing the evidence of several other witnesses, his Honour said he was quite satisfied that the plaintiffs had done all they undertook to do in order to earn their commission, and therefore judgment would be for the amount of the claim (£42 10s.) and costs.
THE AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK.
BY GLARE SEWELL READ.
“ It is just twelve months ago that the lift in the dark cloud which had fallen over the agricultural interest for 20 years gave us a momentary hope that better times were in store for the arable farmer,” writes Mr. C. S. Read to !the “ Times.” “ But it was not even a passing gleam of sunshine; it was the lightning flash of war and speculation; now the darkness te thicker and blacker than before. The only good which that sudden rise in the price of wheat last May did was to enrich the few wealthy farmers who had any wheat to sell, but it has raised the cost of production all round, and we have to pay more for labour, manures, and feeding stuffs. Yet we are selling the best wheat England ever produced at 25s. per quarter, wool has reached the lowest price ever recorded, and, notwithstanding the poor root crop, beef hardly averages 6d. per lb.
“ But there is another feature of the farming outlook which is very sad to contemplate, and that is the decreasing influence agriculture has upon Parliament, or even with a friendly Administration. Our foreign and colonial competitors never fail to bring all !the pressure of their agricultural societies to bear upon their respective Governments, who pass protective tariffs, and sometimes give export bounties on their produce, but if any measure for the benefit of the British farmer comes before the Imperial Parliament, the Royal charter of our National Agricultural Association prevents it from even considering the matter. I do not suppose the Royal Agricultural Society as at present constituted would care ׳to co-operate with chambers of agriculture, farmers’ clubs, county agricultural associations, or even with its elder brother, the Smithfield Club ; bu׳t I cannot help thinking, if the president and half a dozen members of the council could have had power to approach the Prime Minister and laid before him the unanimous opinion of its 10,000 members upon the shortcomings of the Adulteration Bill, we might possibly have been spared the melancholy spectacle of the President of our Board of Agriculture defending and upholding one of the greatest frauds upon British produce by granting a legal status to colouring margarine to represent butter.”
but not the advowson, with tihe Rev. Dr. Robins for the living of Hemel Hempstead. There were at the time negotiations for the exchange of the advowson®, but they fell through. Plaintiff was personally acquainted with both the defendant and Dr. Robins, and in 1897 he learned that the advowson of St. George's was for sale, and, according to his case, the defendant employed him to dispose of it, and agreed to his terms of commission—viz., 5 per cent, on the first £1,000 realised, 2¿ per cent, on the balance up to £6,000, and 1^ per cent, on any further sum beyond £6,000.
The plaintiff said he saw Dr. Robins, and induced him to buy the advowson for £2,100. Both the trustees׳, who were originally sued, but against whom the proceedings had been abandoned, and the defendant declined to pay the claimant his commission, although an offei of 20 guineas instead of the £75, as a quantum meruit was made. This offer plaintiff refused to accept, and continued this action against the defendant.
The defence was that the negotiations had been going on between Dr. Robins and the trustees ever since 1892, and that the plaintiff did net introduce the purchaser.
Air. McCall, Q.C., and Mr. J. E. Bankes appeared for the plaintiff ; and Air. Witt, Q.C., and׳ Air. J. G. Josephs for the defendant.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, £75, and judgment was entered accordingly.
LORD AlAYOR’S COURT.
June 7.
(Before Sir Charles Hall, Q.C., M.P., Recorder, and a Special Jury.)
SA1E OP GROUND BENTS.
LEOPOLD PARMER V. CAREY.
In this case, the plaintiff, Mr. Leopold Farmer, auctioneer and surveyor, of 46, Gres-ham-street, City, and 12, High-street, Kilbum, sued Airs. K. Carey, a married woman, for £48 as commission earned on the sale of ground rents on property in Primrose-road, Leyton-stone.
Air. Frank Gover was counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. G. Drake (instructed by Messrs. Aletcalfe and Birkett, Raymond’s-btiildings), represented! the defendant.
It appeared1 that the defendant possessed some freehold property in her own right. In 1898 she had erected ten houses, and then desired to sell some ground rents and obtain a mortgage. On August 8, her husband, a builder, called on the plaintiff and! gave him particulars, whereupon Air. Farmer communicated with Air. Philip Stock, auctioneer, of Ooldhaxbour-lane, . Brixton, who was willing to offer terms. The husband again called on the plaintiff on September 28, but on this occasion he stated that his wife was the owner of the property, and that he was acting on her behalf. In this capacity he then signed a commission note, agreeing to pay one year’s ground rent as commission, and 2¡ per cent, on the amount obtained on mortgage, adding to his name the words “per Kate Carey.” Air. Stock communicated with Messrs. Birkett, whose clients advanced the money, and bought the ground rents. On September 29, the plaintiff wrote to the defendant informing her of her husband’s signature, and stating that he would give her name to Air. Philip ¡Stock, and other letters were written none of which were ever repudiated by the defendant. On October 7 a reply was received saying that׳ Air. Birkett had written to say lie would inspect the deeds, and- this was signed “Kate Carey.”
Air. Drake said this was written by the defendant’s daughter.
Mr. Gover said that Air. H. Tranter, a clerk in !the plaintiffs employ, called upon the defendant on December 14, who then said the purchase had not been completed, but she never denied that her husband had any authority to act for her. It was admitted that the transaction was carried through, the ground rents being sold and the mortgage obtained.
Air. Harold Farmer, son of the plaintiff, said he acted for his father in this matter, and saw the husband sign the commission note.
The defendant, Airs. Carey, said her husband, who was a bricklayer, and could neit-hei read nor write, never had her authority to sign !the commission note or act in the matter for her at all. She was away in the country all the time, and did not see ”one of the letters.
Air. C. H. Carey, the husband, said in- his evidence that he !talked the matter over with a man named Thomas, who agreed to give him half of any commission he could get. He signed the commission note through Thomas. He did not speak to his wife about it, nor did she ever give him authority to act for her. He thought they would get £100 to share.
Air. Robert Metcalfe, solicitor, of Alessrs. Aletcalfe and Birkett, said Air. Stock wrote to them with reference to the purchase. They had often appointed him to make surveys. Before they authorised Air. Stock to make an independent survey, they told him that if he was
At the statutory meeting, held under the order, it was elicited that the promoter of the company was Air. V. C. Doubleday, who, with abet¡¿ twelve other gentlemen, expended £2,400 upon the inventions prior to the formation of the company. Upon the registration taking place, two of them became directors, although they were interested in the sale. This irregular conduct had rendered the gentlemen concerned civilly liable to repay money to the company in consequence of the fact not having been disclosed in the prospectus. Ultimately, the shareholders agreed to leave the matter in the hands of the Official Receiver, the creditors’ meeting being adjourned for a week.
* * *
From a report׳ just issued by the Investigation Committee appointed by the shareholders of the Millwall Dock Company, we learn that the total deficiency amounts to £231,000. Should the Bill now before Parliament be passed, the Committee suggest that the Board be reconstituted. The directors have offered to assist the company by subscribing for 50,000 new ordinary stock at par, and the Committee urge the acceptance of the offer.
* - * *
The motor ear industry is making very slow progress in this country. Perhaps one reason is that there has been more than an ordinary amount of crooked dealing in the matter of the various promotions, and “ ways that are dark ” do n!ot recommend themselves to the straightforward Englishman. The latest motor car company to make a hid for public favour is the Joel Electric Camage-Alotor and Battery Syndicate, Limited, the prospectus of which has been privately circulated. The object is to acquire the various inventions and patent lights of the National Alctor Carriage Syndicate, Ltd., with the view to developing the business inti a public company later on. The price to he paid for the patent right is! £30,000, and the capital is £50,000. Large promises are made by the directors, but these may be taken as a matter of course. The prospectus of ■this particular company may be good—or bad. But it is of too speculative a character to be recommended. We do not like these privately circulated prospectuses. It looks as if they will not bear the search-light of public criticism. If all such prospectuses were promptly consigned to the waste paper basket, a good deal of money would he saved that is now wasted in wild-cat ventures.
* * *
An issue which has been very favourably received is that of the Savoy Hotel, Limited, which has just taken over Claridgtis. To enable the company to do this they invited subscriptions for £i75,000 in £10 shares at £13 each. The prospectus states that it is desirable to completely amalgamate the Savoy, Claridge’s, the Grand (Rome), and the Restaurant Alarivaux (Paris), and they add that, “these great hotels, run exclusively for the highest class of rank and fashion, for connoisseurs and gastronomes educated to appreciate the most delicate refinements of luxury and comfort in indoor life, and the perfection of the meet consummate cuisine of the Erench school, will then be under one direction.” It makes one’s mouth water at the thought of it.
* # *
So Patitison’s is to be liquidated after all. Lord Stormonth Darling, in the Court of Session, Edinburgh, had before him the petition by the creditors of the defunct concern to carry on the business till negotiations with the London Syndicate were completed. The negotiations new, however, seem to have failed, and Air. Salvesen, as1 representing a large body of the creditors, opposed any further extension of time, as they had come !to the conclusion that the syndicate was trifling with them. The liquidation will consequently now be proceeded with in the usual way. And so ends another chapter in the history of one of the worst commercial failures of the past decade.
COMMISSION CASES.
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION.
June 5.
(Before Air. Justice Biiuce and a Special Jury.)
THE SALE OP AN ADVOWSON.
STARK V. LEVESON.
The plaintiff, Air. Wilson Emery Stark, now retired, but formerly carrying on business as an ecclesiastical agent, under the style of W. Emery Stark and Co., sued the Rev. Charles Augustus Leveson, the Yicar of Hemel Hempstead, to recover £75 for commission on the sale of the advowson of St. George’s, Campden-hill, London.
It appeared that up to the year 1892 the defendant was the incumbent of St. George’s, Campden-hill, the advowson of which living was, under a marriage settlement, vested in trustees for the benefit of his wife and children. In 1892 the defendant exchanged the living,
Citg topics.
[SPECIALLY CONTRIBUTED.]
Bank Rate 3 per cent (ohanged Feb. 2,1899)
During the past week the most appropriate topic of City circles has been the weather. The cold winterliness of Alay has suddenly given place to the unusually torrid heat of June, and the hitherto immaculately dressed stockbrokers and City clerks are appearing in all the glory of—well, not exactly flannels, hut summer suits and straw hats. From a Stock Exchange point of view, this sudden approach of fine weather is likely ׳to have far-reaching results. It has already created a holiday feeling, and will bring about during the next three months a vast exodus from London to the various׳ seaside- and country resorts, to the great benefit of the railways and of trade generally. That is, should the fine weather not break up. And so far there is no sign of this.
* * *
In such circumstances, business in the stock market® is naturally reduced to small proportions. For several reasons the public remain aloof, and hut for the steady and continuous stream of investment business by trustees and people who have saved money and do not want to speculate, markets would he very idle indeed. We have, in short, almost approached the dead season, and a return !to anything like activity can hardly be expected until the autumn, by ■when it is hoped the various political problems that are at present having so disturbing an influence will be finally solved. * * *
William Whitelew Limited, which has been talked about so laiig that interest concerning it has almost died out, is at la׳st an accomplished fact. It is only a very moderately capitalised affair after all. The share capital is £900,100, divided into 450,000 4¿ per cent, cumulative preference, an equal number of ordinary shares, and 100 management shares, each of £1. Particulars concerning the management shares are rather vague and indefinite. The public are invited to subscribe for £900,000 4 per cent, first mortgage irredeemable debenture stock at 102, and !the market has already begun to gamble in it by putting a premium of £8 on lit and dealing at 110.
* * *
The failure of the conference between Sir Alfred Milner and Air. Kruger came as a great disappointment. Now that it is over, however, people are asking what they could have expected from the meeting. When two parties, whose aims, aspirations, and opinions are diametrically opposed to each other, meet to discuss matters there must be some common ground of agreement, and at Bloemfontein there was no common ground. What is to he ■done now nobody knows. We do not stand exactly where we did before the conference. England, a large ׳and opulent empire, has made overtures to a■ little republic and been snubbed; that is about the truth of it. The position now is a very grave one, and its effect upon the South African market has already been disastrous. We do not anticipate war with the Transvaal. But there are signs that the crisis will become much more acute before it is over. * * *
Another failure during the week to which attention has been drawn is the Japan Loan. The amount to be raised was altogether ten millions, but as two millions were taken up in Japan itself, the amount actually offered lieire was eight millions. Of tills only a small proportion has been subscribed by the public. A good deal had been expected from provincial applicants, but the provinces have apparently regarded the loan, much as London has, as something to he severely left alone. And yet Japan is not looked upon as a country likely to play her creditors false. Her character, at present, in this respect is unimpeachable, and, as !to the security, her credit is considered to he ample. But the loan was too large, and the issuing banks knew it. The underwriters will now have to peddle their holdings, bit by hit, upon an! unwilling market, and this is not a very bright outlook for them.
* * *
It is an unusual experience to learn that we are reaching the limits of our coal supply. Yet this seem® to be the case, if we may judge by •the circular just issued by Messrs. Geo. J. Cockerell and Co. In their remarks on the gtneral outlook of the trade, they state that owing to the continued aeth ity in ”all branches of industry, and particularly in the iron trade, the demand for coal has practically reached the limit, of available supply, and consequently there is the certainty of prices ruling higher than for a number of years past. Aloreover, in the event of the coming winter proving a severe one, prices of all kinds of house coal would at once respond to the extra requirements. This is not ait all reassuring to the poor householder.
* * *
A winding-up order has been made against the Electric Exploitation Company, Limited,1