AN INTERESTING CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIV, Issue 207, 1 September 1893, Page 2

AN INTERESTING CASE.

LIABILITY OF MANURE VENDORS.

A decision of interest to manure vendors and the farming community was given by Dr. J. Giles yesterday afternoon at the R. M. Court. W. S. Lauries summoned Henry Alley to show cause why he should not pay £13 7s 6d alleged to be due for manure supplied. Mr C. Buddie appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr T. Cotter for tha defence. 1b was admitted by the defendant thab the manuro had been received, but he contended that as its effect was nil, the article was manifestly bad, and should not be paid for. Evidence was given by plaintiff thab the manure was the came as that supplied to other customers from whoinno complaints had been received. Tlio defendant deposed that the manure had been properly applied and the results were nil. An amounb of correspondence waa read and put in. Mr Cotter then addressed the Court, and pointed out that the manure was ordered for grass, and that the plaintiff waa practically a manufacturer of manure. He argued that when such manure waa properly applied and yet gave no results, it was evidenb the fertiliser was valueless, and, consequently, defendant should not) be called upon to pay for it. Mr Cotter also raised nome technical points. Mr Buddie, in roply, pointed onb that plaintiff performed his contract by sending two ot the bast manures. If the crop did not succeed, ho contended that Mr Alley could not practically fall back and claim damages.

Dr. Giles disposed of the technical objections by a few brief remarks. With regard" to the merits of the case, His Worship enid he could ciuite see the difficulty of putting the vendor entirely at the mercy of the purchaser, and if that was the whole case, he would probably say thab the purchaser would have to pay for the manure. Bub in the present instance the purchaser gave tha seller notice, and asked him to send a man to inspect the crop, offering1 to pay all expenses. There rnuet have been some reason for his action, and also for the efl'ect of tha manure being ntT, It seemed to havo bsen proved thab the season and the weather were fairly favourable. He could not sco why the inspection should not have been made. Evidently, the manure did not answer the purpose for which ib was purchased. Judgments wae given icr the da« fendanb.