NEGLIGENCE ALLEGED

Evening Star, Issue 18852, 29 January 1925, Page 6

NEGLIGENCE ALLEGED

STOCK AGENTS SHED. In the Alagistrate’s Court this morn* ing, before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, B.Alan action was brought by Sydney Johnson, of “ Ashton A r ale.”_ Sutton (Air Barrowdough), farmer, against Donald Rem and Co., agents, Dunedin (Mr L B. Dalian) The matter arose out of the case recently before the Supreme Court m which "the present plaintiff obtained judgment p~ain?t one Alunro in a case dealing with the sale of certain lambs. _ Air Barrowclough, in opening the case, said that the question raised was somewhat novel and of considerable interest to farmers. It was one as to whether or not a stock agent who arranges for a sale is liable to one of the parties if he makes a careless error in negotiating the sale. , . . Continuing, counsel explained the circumstances at length. These were, in effect, that plaintiff had met a dealer named Alunro in Donald Reid and Co. 8 office, and in conversation it was suggested that, a sale of Johnson’s lambs, for forward delivery, might be arranged. A sale at 21s each was arranged, and a sal# note made out and signed by each of the parties. Johnson subsequently found that the price had, by- an oversight, not been filled in in the note, and got his father to see the agents and have the matter adjusted. This was done in the case oi Johnson’s note and the agents' note, but it transpired afterwards that, though Alunro find been communicated with on the matter, be denied receiving this, and afterwards filed, as a defence, the statement that his contract was defective. When Alunro inspected the lambs he rejected (hem, on the ground that they had been starved. Johnson thereupon took action, which was removed by the defendant to the Supreme Court, and judgment was given for plaintifl. the court finding that the lambs were not in a starved condition, as alleged. It was agreed to accept Judgment with,out costs, aud the present action was brought to recover costs, on tho ground that plaintiff suffered damage by defendants' negligence, such negligence consisting in failure of defendants on or about September 27, 1923, to procure a sufficient note or memo, of a contract for the sale of lambs. I'ie amount claimed was £62 12s Id. Dealing with the defective note, counsel said it would bo monstrous to assume that the agents should, for the 24 per rent, commission which thev charge, assume no liability whatever, but merely lend their office as a place where the contract might be drawn up. Ho submitted that the agent should, for his commission, at least procure ft binding contract. Counsel wont on to quote freely from authomies.

The was proceeding "'hen the court rose for luncheon.