A SHEEP DEAL

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XL, Issue 9897, 30 August 1919, Page 6

A SHEEP DEAL

NEW TRIAL WANTED.

CHRISTCHURCH, August 29. His H6nor 'Mr Justice Herdman heard legal argument in the Supreme Court to-day on motions for a nonsuit or a new trial in the case T. S. Harrison, Methven, v. W. Ashton Ashburton, claim tor £662 10s 6d, arising out' of the alleged sale of a line of storo sheep. Mr H. D. A eland, with him Mr Frank Wilding, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Al". J. Gresson, with him Mr H. C. Orbell. for the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that on December 9, 1918, he agreed to sell, and the defendant agreed to buy, at £1 10s 3d each, about 1300 sound-mouth ewes from the. -Mount Possession estate, all lame, and failing mouth to -he rejected, leaving a lino of about' 1100 to 1200. delivery to bo given and taken at the end of March, 1919. It was alleged that the defendant took delivery of .746 sheep, but subsequently refused to lift or pay for the ewes. ...-Mr Gresson moved for a nonsuit on the following grounds:—^(l) That the plaintiff did not at any time tender to the defendant a line of sheep such as was described in the contract in that he bnly tendered 964 instead of 1300; (2) that the plaintiff did not tender bebetween 1100 and 1200 sound-mouth ewes, but only 746; (3) that the plaintiff had incapacitated himself from performance of the contract by disposing of a portion of the line before the date of delivery; (4) that delivery was not taken, in that the defendant was given no opportunity, of rejecting the lame sheep; (5) that the contract was not severable and the plaintiff on his own evidence contended that I. Forbes had to take 218 sheep, less 50 or 60; (6) that there was no evidence in writing of a , new contract to take 746, as required by the Sale of Goods Act.

In the alternative he moved for a new trial on the grounds:—(l) That the jury's verdict that the defendant consented to receive and did accept the 746 ewes mentioned in the statement of claim-in fulfilment of the contract dated December 9, 1918, was against the weight of the evidence; (2) that the damages awarded were excessive and based on a wrong measure of damages; (3) non-direction. „ Mr Gresson pointed out that the third ground for a new' trial could only hold if coupled with a decision from his Honor that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. Mr Gresson contended' that the right of rejection lay with the purchaser-under the contract, A seller could not reject, he could only tender. Under the Sale of Foods Act the word "reject" was only applied to- a purchaser. His Honor said the whole question hinged 'on the interpretation of # the words in the contract, "to be rejected." Mr Acland said the plaintiff based his case on the words "soundmouthed" in the contract. He only | undertook to sel", ihe sound-mouth ( ewes. Decisiou was reserved.