DISPUTED WEIGHT OF COAL.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXI, Issue 25, 31 January 1911, Page 7

DISPUTED WEIGHT OF COAL.

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS. Reserved judgment was given by Dr. M'Arthur, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court to-day, in the- civil action brought by Samuel Brown, Ltd., against the Tyneside Proprietary Coal-mining Company, Ltd., to recover the sum of £5? 13s 3d, as balance of account on 'the purchase of coal. The sole matter in dispute was the weight. Plaintiffs contended that they sold on a basis of five baskets to the ton, and that this basis corresponded with the amount supplied to their steamer by the coal company. Defendants contended that they bought according to weight, and that by their weighing six baskets went to the ton. "I am satisfied that both parties are genuine in their contentions," said his [Worship, "and that this is, unhappily, one of those disputes which arise through unforeseen circumstances/ Ths coal was purchased in December, 1909, and the dispute as to weight arose ehortly afterwards. A good deal of correspondence and conversation took place between the parties; and an arrangement was made as to future transactions on a basis of 5.2 baskets to the ton, and had there been no question of law involved, the magistrate would be inclined to settle the case on that basis. The defence contended that the weight sf the shipment was 3741b to the basket, making six baskets to the ton ; also that the plaintiffs were estopped by a receipt they had given, and their conduct in delaying action. This receipt, it was understood by defendants, had been given in full settlement, plaintiffs saying it was only on account. After an exhaustive citation of authorities, Ms Worship said he thought the plaintiffs could not succeed, for the ■following reasons ; — There was a weighing, though not a mutual one, in whicTi the average amounted to six baskets to ,the ton, "In my opinion, the cheque .was sent in settlement of the dispute, End was received with a full knowledge of the facts, or with the means of knowing the facts, and I consider that the plaintiffs are estopped by their receipt of the cheque and their conduct in delaying from January to June." Judgjnent was accordingly for the defendants, with tho usual costs. Mr. A. L. Herdman appeared for the plaintiffs at the hearing;' Mr. M. Myers Jor defendants.