AFTER THE FIRE

Evening Post, Volume XCVIII, Issue 139, 10 December 1919, Page 11

AFTER THE FIRE

LIABILITY FOR LOSS

SHEEPJAR-JER AND SHBBPBUYER.

The aftermath of the disastrous fire which swept over a large area of the northern part of the Provincial District of Wellington last March was involved in an action heard by Mr Justice Edwards at Wanganui last week. The plaintiffs in the action were Mitcbinson Bros, and Bott, sheepfarmers at Raetihi. The defendants were the Taihape Farmere' Meat and Produce Company, Limited. The claim was for £242 4s 3d, for goods sold and delivered. On the day immediately preceding the night of the fire the defendants' buyer purchased from the plaintiffs a number of sheep, which were selected by the buyer from the plaintiffs' flock, and marked by the defendant's -buyer with a red -addle brand. The total number was 280, but, as it wae growing dark, it was not practicable to count separately the number of the sheep of each class that day. The sheep were first separately penned, and afterwards, at the request of the defendants' buyer, placed in the plaintiffs' holding paddock. There was a sufficient note of the terms of the contract of sale. On the same night the fire ran over the plaintiffs' property, resulting in the' loss of their flock of 2500 sheep, except 400. Among the sheep lost were 143 of those sold by the plaintiff- to the defendants. The defendants refused to pay for the sheep so lost, and. in the action set up va-ions technical defences under "The Sale of Goods Act, 1908." At the conclusion of the trial, however, the only defence relied upon by counsel for the defendants \vas that the plaintiffs were bound to count the sheep contained in each class for the purpose of ascertaining the price, and that, as this had not been done, the property in the sheep did not pass to the defendants, and that they remained at the plaintiffis' risk. The learned Judge overruled this objection, holding that the sale was complete when the sheep had been' selected and marked by the defendants' buyer, and at his request placed in a special place whence the defendants were at liberty to remove' them, and holding also that the evidence showed that it was the intention of the parties . that the property. in the sheep should pass at the time of sale, Therefore, as it was not contested that the sum claimed wae tho reasonable value of the sheep destroyed, the plaintiffs had judgment for the amount claimed by them. , ■ ■ ' Mr. A. W. Blair (Wellington) appeared as counsel for'the plaintiffs, and Mr. C. C. Hutton (Wanganui) as counsel for the dofendants. !