ASHBURTON-THURSDAY. [Before Mr C. A. Wray, R.M.] A STORAGB CASE. D. Fitzgerald v D. Thomas. Claim, £!0 Bs4d. Mr Purnell for plaintiff; Mr Wilding for defendant. There was a cross action for £7 6s 4d. The first action arose, as stated by Mr Purnell, out of Fitzgerald not having been able to supply wheat he had sold to a buyer m consequence of Thomas having so stored it that it was impossible to deliver, and loss had resulted. Evidence was heard at great length'— The plaintiffs evidence was m the direction of proving the inability of defendant to deliver when wanted to do so j and the defendant's, that plaintiff had contracted for 4000 bushels storage, and delivered only 1000, while 4000bushels'space had been left for him. In consequence of the short delivery the storage arrangements had been such that it was impossible to keep plaintiffs grain uncovered. It was also shown that plaintiff had been a consenting party to an arrangement for delivery by defendant after the wool sales were over. The Bench finding that plaintiff had so consented gave judgment for defendant. In the second action the claim was virtually admitted, and judgment was given for plaintiff.
Permanent link to this item
MAGISTERIAL., Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2458, 4 July 1890
MAGISTERIAL. Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2458, 4 July 1890
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.