THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 10340, 14 June 1897, Page 2

THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

MAGISTRATE'S COCBT. (Before E. H> Carew, Esq., S.M.) A. S. Paterson and Co. v. laaao M. Ureeflaway. - Claim, £49 12s Bd, for -damages. Mr Solomon and Mr Hoiking appeared for the plaintiff company, and Mr Sim for the defendant.—ln this previously- | heard oase His Worship gave judgment as 1 follows J

.the first question is whether the Canterbury Farmers' Co-operatfve Association had authority to sell defendant's wheat, or whether his instructions were to seek a purchaser, but not to close without first consulting him. That is the real contention between the parties. There is a conflict of evidence. The defendant swears Mr England asked him to give thera another chance to sell the wheat and to lower the price; a halfpenny, and he replied: " I will; but remember it is subject to sale." He admits that after this Mr England wrote something on paper, and then read to him: " Owner in town, and will take 4s Id f.0.b." He says he did not know this was written for a telegram; but he admits he knew it was intended as a communication to some person, and that he called back at the office three times that day to inquire if the Association had received a reply. Mr England's version of what took place is that when defendant first called at the office he told him he could not get 4s clear of commission, but was almost sure he could get 4s Id f.0.b., and defen 1 dant then authorised him to sell at 4s Id; that he wrote out the telegram and read it to defendant, who approved of it, and said he Would come back ih the afternoon and see what reply came. The defendant admitted the writing was read to him, and does not say he objected to it—all, in fact, he does say is that he did not know until his lost visit to the office fn the afternoon that the writing was intended for ft telegram. He knew, at any rate, it was an offer to sell, and no term was included that it was to be subject to sale. The defendant was never informed that an earlier offer had been made to the same person, which was subject to sale, consequently he intended and assumed the offer he approved of was made without any such condition, and by inference authorised the Association to sell. I think, even if in the first instance defendant said the wheat was to be offered at 4s Id, but "subject to sale," that he waived the condition when he approved of the telegram; but the evidence of Mr England and Mr M'Kenzie is against defendant having said anything about subject to sale. Mr M'Kenzie swears that defendant gave no instructions that a sale was to be conditional in that reI spect. Mr EDgland and defendant also differ as to what took place at the last interview on the 26th January. Defendant was evidently anxious to sell his wheat, had shown his desire that the offer by the Association should be accepted, and as he was leaving the town he would be more likely to press Mr England to do his best to sell the wheat, as Mr England says he did, than ask, if the offer was accepted, to_ refer again to him. It seems to me that the Association were fully authorised to sell the wheat. As to damages, the question is: what price would plaintiffs have had to pay to obtain similar wheat to replace that the defendant failed to deliver. The wheat was actually sold for him by another firm at 4s 2d, but the salesman says he believes he could have got 4s 3d if he had exclusive control of the wheat. To some extent this was a forced sale, and there is no evidence there was other wheat to be obtained at that price, and the evidence of experts is that the price of wheat at Timaru—that is, I presume, the price at which it could be bought at the time—was 4s 3d, and possibly up to 4a b'd per bushel. I think 2d per bushel is a fair measure of damages. Judgment for plaintiffs for i' 49 12s Bd, with costs of examination A'slos, costs of court £1 14s, witnesses' expenses 21s, professional costs A' 3 9s. Charles C. Croft v. Robert Farmer (South 1 Dunedin).—Claim, £lss, for goods supplied. t —Judgment by default, with costs. John Plunkett (for whom Mr Payne appeared) v. James Gray (Inveroargill). Claim, £1 19s, balance of account due.— Judgment by default, with costs. Mathison Bros. v. Allan Johnßton. Claim, £2 10s, for forty loads of rotten rock quarried by the plaintiffs and removed by the defendant. Mr Sim appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Fraser for the defendant. —After evidence the plaintiffs were nonsuited, with costs (£2 &)• CITY POLICE COURT. (Before Messrs A. Herdman and James Horsburgh, J.P.s.) Drunkenness.—Two first offenders we.e convicted and discharged, and another, who did not appear, was fined ss, in default twenty-four hours' imprisonment. Mary M'Glashan, an habitual drunkard, was sent to gaol for one month. Hugh Reeves and James Wyllie were each fined 20s for disorderly conduct while drunk. Alleged Assault and Inflicting Bodily Harm— John Douglas Norris was charged on remand with having, on May 22, assaulted William Daly Revington while assisting the police in the execution of their duty, and inflicted grievous bodily harm.— Mr Hanlon appeared for accused.— Sergeant O'Neill said chat as Dr Jeffcoat, who was an important witness, was out of town he would have to ask for a remand.—Mr Hanlon consented, and the case was accordingly remanded till to-morrow morning.