Image TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage Tile
Image size: 7168x9216 Scale: 35% - PanoJS3
Page overview thumbnail

Article text

SALE OF A JANDAKOT FARM.
CLAIM FOR COMMISSION.
JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT.
Before Mr. Justice McMillan, in No.
i Supreme Court yesterday, Jacob
Schmidt brought an action against Alf.
Garlsen for the recovery of £75, bal
ance of £100 commission alleged to have
been agreed tp be paid to the plaintiff
upon the sale by him of the defendant's
farm at Jandakot.
The defence was that the agreed
commission upon the sale by the plain
tiff of the defendant's farm was £25,
which amount had, it was allegsd been
paid by defendant to plainaff before
the action was brought.
Mr. J. D. Moss appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. F. G. Unmack for
the defendant.
At the conclusion of the plaintiff's
evidence, counsel for the parties, on
the suggestion of his Honour, confer
red with a view of arriving at a settle
ment. No agreement was, however,
arrived at, and the taking of evidence
proceeded.
His Hcnour, in the course of his
judgment, said the fact that plaintiff
was to be paid some amount as commls
sion on the sale of defendant's farm
was not in dispute, nor was there any
question that the farm was sold for
£1,000. The question he had to decide
was purely one of fact, and was one
which had given him a great deal of
difficulty. The plaintiff had told a
story which was directly contradicted
by the defendant, and he (his Honour)
had looked through the evidence to see
if he corJd possibly find something
which supported the story of either of
them, but he had been unable to find
anything which had satisfied him as to
which of the parties was telling the
truth. The onus of proof was on the
plaintiff, who, under the circumstances,
had not satisfied him that lie was en
titled to a larger sum Than the £25
which he had alrealy received. If
his decision should be wrong-and he
had already said that he had great
doubt about the case-plaintiff had to
remember that be had only himself to
thank. If people would not take the
trouble, in matters of that kind to
have their business affairs reduced to
writing, and were content to rely on
the inadequate recollection of people
who were called to speak of something
which in no way directly interested
them, they could not be surprised if a
court of jsti~e found it difficult to de
cide on which side was the truth. It
was for the plaintiff to make out his
case, and the evidence called to sup
port the defendant's story was of as
much weight as that called to support
the plaintiff's. Under these circum
stances, therefore,, his judgment would
be for the defendant, with costs.
$