THE COURTS—TO-DAY

Evening Star, Issue 15892, 26 August 1915, Page 6

THE COURTS—TO-DAY

SUPREME COURT.—CIVIL SITTIN US* (Before His Honor Mr Justice Sim.) Gibson and Othees v. Wilson. An action removed from the Magistrate’s Court. ' Mr Payne (instructed by Lee, Grave and Grave, of Oamaru) for the plaintiffs’ Hector Gibson, of Hindis, sheep farmer* Eric Adolphus Munro, of Hindis, hoteh keeper, and George Bain Henderson, of Hindis, shepherd; Mr White for the defendant, John Wilson, of Lauder, farmer. Claim £154 6s lOd, damages sustained by reason of the ’ defendant refusing to accept and pay for sheep bargained and sold by the plaintiffs to the defendant on or about the 18th February, 1914. for delivery abqut the 16th April, 1914. Particulars: 788 wethers at 7s, £275 16s; less amount realised at auction on 19th April, 1914, £l2l 9s 2d—£ls4 6s lOd. ‘ The amended statement of defence was to this effect: Plaintiffs did not bargain for or sell to defendant any wethers at any time. If the plaintiffs did sell any wethers to the defendant (which the defendant denies), then there was no note or memorandum of the contract in writing to satisfy the requirements of section 5 of the Sales of Goods Act. If there was a sale, it was a sale by description of about 800 merino wethers, the description being that they were fat and forward, in good condition, fit to be put on turnips, and that half were ready for killing. That the plaintiffs never offered or were ready to deliver to the defendant any sheep answering the said description. If there was a sale, thfe plaintiffs’ representations as to description were untrue. That the sheep were worth £275 15s if as warranted, but in fact were worth only £l2l 9s 2d, and the defendant claimed a set off in price of £154 6s lOd as damages for breach of the said warranty. ° Mr Payne opened as to the facts. The plaintiffs were innholders; the defendant a. buyer of sheep. The dispute occurred in connection with an agreement dated 18th February, 1914, for the sale of 890 merino wethers, branded MA with a cull dot in raddle marked red. The agreement was in writing. By agreement the delivery was postponed till the 14th April. 'Die sheep were not inspected by the defendant. The .parties met again on tho 18th March, and defendant then asked for a postponement- of delivery until the Oturehva sale on tho 16th April. This postponement was agreed to, but the plaintiffs would say that it was subject to tho purchaser’s risk during the extended time. The place of delivery was. also altered from Cambrians to St. Bathans. The sheep were taken to St. Bathans. Defendant refused. to accept delivery, stating that the sheep were not in the condition in which ho purchased them. Plaintiffs then said that they would sell the sheep at the defendant’s risk, and tho sheep were sold at the sale at which the defendant intended to eell them. The accounts of the sale showed a loss of £154 6s lOd, and that was tho sum for which the plaintiffs now cued. The defendant pleaded, first, the Statute of Frauds, and then he pleaded that the sale was a sale by description. But there was nothing in the written agreement about these warranties. Plaintiffs said it was simply a sale ‘of cull wethers, and that there was no warranty aud no statement- as to condition. Hector Gibson and other witnesses were called by Mr Payne. The plaintiff’s case was not finished at 3.30 p.m. MAGISTRATE’S COURT. (Before H. Y. Widdowson. Esq., S.MJ Judgment was given £or the plaintiffs for the amounts claimed, 'with costs, in the following undefended cases:—Johnston. Sons, and Co. v. Christopher Bailey (Washdyke), claim £3 10s for book supplied ; same v. Thomas Brennan (Qngarue), claim £1 for book supplied; same v. John-Woodley (Carterton), claim £2 7s 6d for book supplied; same v. John Robert Triphook (Bawene), claim £2 12s 6d for book supplied ; same v. Henry E. Tristram (Hamilton), claim £4 4s for book supplied : same v. Charles Blake (Hawcra), claim £4 5s 6d for book supplied ; same v. Reuben James Wilson (Hamilton), claim £1 17s 6d for book supplied; Gordon and Gotch v. A. R. Porter (Invercargill), claim £3 5s 4d for calendars supplied (judgment for 5s 6d costs); David Grubb v. James Mitchell, claim £4 for goods supplied (judgment for £2 2s 6d and costs).