SHEEP FUTURES

Evening Post, Volume XCIX, Issue 92, 19 April 1920, Page 8

SHEEP FUTURES

SELLING A SELECTION

CASE BEFORE COURT OF APPEAL.

A peculiar 1 and complicated deal in sheep was the subject of a case, Ashton v. Harrison, before the Court of Appeal 'to-day. On the Bench were their Honours the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr. Justice Cooper, and Mr. Justice Chapman. Mr. C: P. Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr. M. J. Gresson (Christchurch), appeared for the appellant, William Ashton, farmer, Ashburton, and ..Sir John Findlay, with him Mr. <F. S. Wilding (Christchurch), for the respondout, Thomas Soloman Harrison, sheenfarmer, Methven. The appeal was from the judgment of Mr. Justice Herdman in refusing a nonsuit or to grant a new trial.

The facts of the case,as presented by A'lr. Skerrett • were that in March, 1918, Harrison purchased 1330 ewes as soundmouthed sheep at a dealing sale of the Mount Possession run,. and after holding them through the winter and spring placed them in the hands of the National Mortgage Agency for sale. At the Methven saleyards Ashton saw the sheep and entered into a contract through the agents with Harrison on '9th December, 1918, for the delivery at end of March, 1919, of about 1300 sound-mouthed ewes of the particular flock, at a price of £1 10s 3d each, all lame and broken-mouthed sheep to be rejected. In the interval Ashton resold the shoep to one Forbes for a rise of Is 3d apiece, while the actual flock in the holding of Harrison was diminished by deaths 162, leaving a balance of 1163, and again by the sale of 163 alleged unsound sheep four days before the sale. When the day came up for delivery only 964 sheep could be mustered. Ashton, Forbes, Harrison, and the o agent for the National Mortgage Company were present. It was agreed that Forbes should examine the sheep, and he threw out 218 for unsoundness, after. a protest on the part of Harrison. The remaining sheep were run through.the race a-gain and counted, and this was construed by Harrison as acceptance and delivery of the number 764. Forbes refused to have anything more to do witli thel matter, and after arbitration, had failed legal action was taken. Harrison resold the ewes for £575 16s and claimed the difference between the contract price and the price realised, £612 10s 6d, together with £50 damages for paddocking and superintendence. The jury in the case found that Ashton did consent to accept 746 ewes in fulfilment of the contract, and awarded Harrison £612 10s 6d. A motion by Ashton for a nonsuit or a new trial was dismissed by' Mr. Justice Herdman, who entered judgment for Harrison, with costs.

Mr. Skerrett submitted that the contract was for the sale and purchase of a selection from a certain flock of sheep, and the vendor under the contract had no right to cull without the consent of the purchaser. To allow culling would leave no purchaser safe.