CHEMICAL MANURE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 234, 30 September 1908, Page 5

CHEMICAL MANURE.

A QUESTION OF QUALITY. At the Magistrate's Court this morning, before Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., Adolph Lorie sued Bond and Bell for £77 in connection with a transaction in chemical, manures. Mr. R. McVeagh appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. T. Cotter for the defendant company. The statement of claim sets out that in February last defendant sold to plaintiff 50 tons of basic slag at £3 10/- per ton. Thirty-six tons had been delivered, but defendants refused and neglected to deliver the remaining 14 tons, whereby plaintiff hadj suffered loss and damage. It is furtljpr set out that about the month of February last it was agreed between the parties that defendants should sell and deliver to the plaintiff 20 tons of basic slag, and that defendants would further sell him a further quantity of 30 tons should he require it. Plaintiff claimed that the 3(> tons of basic slag delivered by defendants were of inferior quality to that warranted by defendants. In particular the percentage of phosphoric acid and percentage of fineness was less than that warranted by the defendants. It was claimed that plaintiff had suffered great loss and damage through the inferiority of the basic slag, and had obtained a lower yield in respect of his crops than would have been the case had it corresponded with tho warranty. In respect of the non-delivery of the 14 tons, plaintiff claimed £7, and in respect of his alleged loss he claimed £70. Mr. McVeagh said that his client felt that it was not merely due to himself to vindicate his rights in the matter, but it was also due to the farming com-, munity that it should he made perfectly I clear that when a contract of that kind ; was entered into it was clearly the duty j of the vendor to supply maerial corres- | ponding entirely with what was stipulated to be supplied. Mr. Lorie had been I in communication with the Farmers'! Union, and they had urged him to take J the present proceedings in the interests I of the farming community as well as his j own. There had been ar. increase in the price of basic slag, and in consc- j quence of the non-supply plaintiff would I be compelled to pay more for the basic j slag than he would have to pay defendants. In respect of the hrcach of warranty, plaintiff claimed damages corresponding to the loss he had sustained. Adolph Lorie, the plaintiff, said that in February he had a conversation with defendants regarding the purchase of basic slag. Eventually he agreed ,to purchase 20 tons of basic slag of a stipulated quality, with the option of purchasing another 50 at £3 10/- a ton. In reply to questions by his Worship, the plaintiff said that he bought 20 tons i with the promise to take another 30 tons if he wanted it. Tlie defendants! would not sell less than 50 tons at the price quoted. His Worship: You would not purchase more than 20 tons, and they would not sell less than 50 tons. A considerable quantity of correspondence between the parties was put iv. Continuing, the witness said he bought the s!«g as 15.5 or 15.05 per cent, phosphoric acid and the stuff sent up was only 16 point something. He called on defendants and complained, when Mr Bond denied that he had sold the slag as 15.05, but subsequently Mr Glover (another member of the firm) said they had. Continuing, the witness said he had not as good results from the slag in question as he had the previous year. The slag in question was not only inferior in phosphoric acid, but was very much coarser. His loss through drilling the slag in one paddock alone instead of superphosphates was £S5. To Mr Cotter: He would not have coarse basic slag at any price. Anything less than SO per cent, pureness he regarded as coarse '^Proceeding.)