COURT OF APPEAL

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3044, 3 April 1917, Page 5

COURT OF APPEAL

SUPPLIER AND DAIRY CO A sitting of tho Court of Appeal was held yesterday. The Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, presided, and with him Mr. Justice Cooper, Mf. Justice Chapman, and Sir John Dennis ton. were associated. Harry Edward Good, of Wanganui, grazier, appealed against a decision given, in the Supreme Court by His Honour Mr. Justice Edwards in favour of William James Itobertson Bruce, of Wanganui, farmer. For tho appellant, Sir Francis Bell, K.C., Mr. 0. P. Skerrett, K.C., and Mr. C. A. Izard appeared. The respondent Bruco was represented by Sir. C. B. Morison, K.C., and Mr. F. B. Brown. The ground of tho appeal was that tho deoision of Mr. Justice Edwards was erroneous in point of law and on matter of fact. I'll the Supreme Court, Bruce, suing on behalf of himself and all crthers having tho same interest, claimed an account of the proceeds of certain butter and cheese of which tho defendant Good was alleged to have taken possession and which he was alleged to have sold. The plaintiff alleged that ho and numerous other dairy farmers delivered to a company called the •Wanganui Co-operativo Dairy Co., Ltd., the cream produced by their herds, upon terms that tho company should, as their agent and on their behalf, manufacture such bream. into butter and consign the butter to England for sale; that the company should ' deduct from the proceeds of the sale one penny per pound of the butter manufactured; and also the'proceeds of thirteen pounds of butter in respect of each hundred pounds of butter-fat supplied,, and a proportionate part of tho expenses of the export and sale of tho butter,; and that the company should account to each of the suppliers for the proceeds of the cream supplied by .him. The plaintiff further alloged that the defendant, under 'colour of a debenture granted by tho company to the Union Bank of Australia, .Ltd., and subsequently assigned to the defendant, wrongfully took possession of and sold certain butter held by tho company, and that he had refused to account to tho suppliers for the proceeds of such sales.

Good's defence was that tho plaintiff and the other suppliers sold their cream to the oompany, and that tho huttcr, the produce of the cream, "was the property of the company; that pos--sossion thereof wae lawfully taken by him,, and that it was lawfully sold by him Tinder the powers _given by the debenture already .mentioned. Five additional defences were set up by the statement of defence, but at the argument upon further consideration the first, fifth, and sixth'defences only were ■relied upon by counsel for, the defendant. By the fifth defence the defendant alleged that if the company was the agent' of the plaintiff, then the company was a mercantile agent within the' meaning of the Mercantile Law Act, 1908, and was in possession of the butter with the consent of the plaintiff, and could and did as such mercantile agent pledge the butter to the bank. By the sirth defence, the defendant questioned the o'apacity of the plaintiff to bring tho aotion as a representative action. His Honour Mr. Justice Edwards gave judgment for the plaintiff, and it wo!s this judgment (that the-appellant called in question beforo the Court of Appeal. After hearing a considerable amount of legal argument, the Court'adjourned till to-day.