The Stewart Dawson Watch Dispute.

Auckland Star, Volume XVII, Issue 234, 5 October 1886, Page 2

The Stewart Dawson Watch Dispute.

Judgment for Defendant.

His Worship thoR.M. gave judgment in the cbbo Taylor v. Stewart Dawson and Co. this morning.

Hia Worship, in giving judgment, said:—This case arises out of the salo of a watoji by the defendant to tho plalntiir. Tho facts connected with tho Balo aro fow and simple. Tho i.lnintiir in May ISSI, wont into tho defendant's place of business, looked at toiiio watches, and eventually purchased.a watch tor £3 15s. During tho negotiations the defendant said, "It is a Boven guinea watch." Plaintilr askod dofondant it it viaa his own manufacture, aiid dofondant replied, " Yob, wo manufacture all our own watches." Plaintill' then paid lSsjpn account, nnd subsequently *3. That is the whole transaction. Tho advortiscment, in my opinion, forms no part of the contract. He now claims damages from tho defendant on tho grounds: (I) That tho watch was not of tho retail value of seven guineas. (2) That It was not manufactured by the dafendant's llrm. 10 entitle the plaimill' to Bucceod tbe causo of action must arise either from a breach or warranty or (rom a false representation. Ino plaintill', In his purlieu'ars, alleges a warranty, and also a false representation. It ia necßStary to b.ar in mind tho distinction botween thoso two causes of action ln determining the defendant's liability. I will doul with the question of fraudulent repro sentation tlrat. To support this the plaintill' irust provo (1) a statement falso in fact; (2) that the defendant either know it to bo falte. or had no reason to believe it to bo truo, (3) that tho plaintill'was induced by that false statemont to tnter into tho contract. Now. what arc tho allogcd falso statements horef That it. was a sevon-guinca watch I II that meant that it win of tho intrinsic value of seven guinoaa, no doubt It would bo falso, and, 11 false, it must have boon so to tho defendants knowledge, but 1 do not think any person of reasonable, ordinary intelligence would understand it in that v. ay. No doubt, the oredullty of Borne people is very groat, and many an Innocent mind has boen boguiled by the eloquence of eomo cheap Jack at a village fair into believing thatpursod containing sovereigns could bo had for half-a-crown ; but I should bo sorry to have totissuuioso groat an amount of crodulity on the part of tho plaintiffi or to class tbe defendant among inlterant vendors of gluiorack.-. It ts absurd to suppose tho plaintiff ever believed he wan getting so yon nuineaa worth for his fcJ ids. What Booms to mo tho reasonable interpretation to put upon the defendant s words Is that Btich watchoa bad b. en sold for seven KUiieae, a statement very likely true, and not proved io he falso. or at any rate, so far aa the cvld-inco kobb, not shown to be moro than an exaggeration, which, however morally reprehensible, is a well-known feature ln tho pullli.g of war =8 which uo ono over thinks of taking ait pud de la Uttre, and to whloh overyone knows how much or ho w littlo valuo to attach. Or does tho falso representation ojnsiet In tho statement that tho wuteh was not manufactured by Stewart Dawsou Se Col Assuming that that statemont was not truo in fact, what ground Is thero for holding that tho defendant know it to ko untrue or had ho reason to believe It to bo truo I The defendant is not an export, and might havo roaBonubly believed that ho was staling the truth. 1 do not li-id any, and thorofore it seems to mo that tho charge ot fraudulent misrepresentation must full. Was there a warranty) what 1 havo eaid already on tbo subject of tho seven guineas seoms to me to dispoao of the question of warranty so far as that is conoernod. Iho Statement was of the nature of a Bitnplo comntcndatio i/vac non obliyat. It was never intended to bo a warranty. Tho other statement, viz , that tho watch was manufactured by Stewart Dawson and Co.. requires a aiHorent consideration. It was a Btatoment mado at the timo of tho bargain voder circuiußtances which lead to the inference that it was Intondad for a warranty, and if that in so, it ia immaterial whither tho defendant know or believed it to bo false or not. It was purt of the contraot. and tht roforo If it was fako ln fact tbo defendant is liable for any damage the plaintill' may havo sustained. Was the statement false in fact? Was tho watoh No. 101.810 not ma nu/uctvrcd by Stowart Dawson & Co. ? The evid enco in support of plaintiff's contention amounts to Imb : The watch 101,810 ia similar in uppearanco and construction to another watch. No. 115,517. which wns admitted by tho dofondant at tho timo of its Balo to bo ono of another manufacturers— Krhardt-BO similar that tho parts, with one exception, aro interchangeable; ond both watches boar a mark—on arrow—believed by somo of the Witnesses to bo Brhardt's mark, but not known by any of them to bo so. Tho only differences Eolnted out botween them are that No. 115 517 enra Urhardt'a nanio. while No. 101 810 doosuot —iho Bplndlo and ilniah of one of the whools differ In somo respect, and tho balances are gold and stool respectively. Does It nocossarlly follow from this that Erhurdt manufactured watch No. 101,8101 One dilllculty proeonti itself at the outset. The watoh has been in tha hands of a watchmaker nomed Prince, and ho Is allegod to have mado Borne alterations ln It, tho nature ot which is not disc'o.-od. Further, we havo tho fact that ln goneral manufacturers do not actually mako all tho parts of thoir watches. Tho making of movements, escapements, caps, and cases, are all separato branches of tho trauo. The Hnlßhing and adjusting of the dlireront parts constitute the manufacture of the watch. The evidence therefore gees no furthor than that this watch might just as well have boen mado by Krhardt as by Stewart Dawson. To CBtabltah the plalutiffß case, it was necessary to show affirmatively that it was mado by Krhardt, for the issue Is narrowed down to that. It Is not suggested that anyone clso manufactured this watch. The similarity bctwoen tho two watches raises a suspicion that both camo from the samo faoiory, but suspicion ii not enough ln any ciß<\ Posltlvo ovidenco is ncoesaary to establish a breach ot warranty. If tho conclusion woro othcrwiao, tho damages would bo nominal. The watch was sold for £3 15j, apparently a fair prico for it. whether manufactured by Krhardt or by Stewart Dawaon and Co.

Judgmont for dc'ondant. Mr Cot'er said thoro was ono point that Ills Worship had not touched on, viz, that tho dufondant hud admitted that a number of watchoß hud been manufactured for his Urm by Krhardt.

His Worship: nut you asked mo to exclude Dawson's ovidenco altogether. However, it could not affect the lssuu of tho case. Ou Mr Cooper's application, His Worship granted costs to tho defendant.