WHOSE LIABILITY?

Grey River Argus, 19 August 1931, Page 3

WHOSE LIABILITY?

REJECTED TIMBER j Suit for Payment An unusual ease was heard by Mr W. Meldrum. S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when Wild and Robertson claimed £l3 19s lOd from the Alidland Sawmilling Co.. Ltd., as balance due for timber supplied by the plaintiff company to the defendant company, between October Ist and November 30th, 1927. Plaintiff Company was represented by Air A. H. Paterson, and the defendant Company by Mr J. W. Hannan. Mr Paterson said that the dispute! had arisen concerning timber sold by the plaintiff company to the defendant company from certain mills. The timber had been delivered and evidently sold to Australian clients. It had been an understanding that the | right of rejection was exercisable only up to seven days after delivery to Australian clients; but, in the present instance, there had been no reclassi-: fication or rejection until seven 1 months afterwards. The plaintiff com- ! pany later received certain debits. The i two mills, from where the timber had ; come, had gone bankrupt, and Wild and Robertson had no way of getting' it out of them. One mill was Johnstone’s, of Hokitika, from which tim-

ber to the value of £fi 5s 3d had been rejected; and the other was Ward’s Mill, Inangahua, from which timber to the value of £7 14s 7d had been rejected. These shipments were made on October 15, 1927. The defendant company knew that the timber had comp from these mills. Plaintiff had no means of redress.

John Spiers Robertson, managing director, stated that in October, 1927. the timber from Johnstone’s and Ward’s Mills was supplied to the defendant company, which was received and acknowledged by them. There was no question raised about rejections until Alarch 31, 1928, -when advice was received that timber from Ward’s Alill to the value of £7 -14 s 7d and from Johnstone’s Afill to the value of £6 5s 3d, had been rejected. The first notice of the timber being rejected was the reduction of the amount from the monies owing to the plaintiff company. Witness had at all times disputed the amount and had rendered! the account ever since. The recognised practice was that if any part of a shipment of timber were rejected, notification should be given within seven days after the arrival of the timber at its port- of destination. There was no knowledge of rejection in the present case, and his firm knew nothing of it. Ward’s a*nd Johnstone’s mills had gone out of business, and that would be known by the defendant company. They also knew the timber had come from these mills. The guarantors of Ward had to find £4OOO for the guarantees made. These clients had received the cheques for their timber from witness, and there was no chance of receiving a refund. Mr Caldwell, manager of the plaintiff company, said the amounts had been deducted in Sydney by their clients. Although he stated he had no redress, he admitted that it was “over the fence” to do what his firm’s Sydney clients did. The plaintiff company were shippino- for those people.

To Air Hannan He was unfortunately one of Ward’s guarantors. It was I a practice between the plaintiff comI pany and his firm to make allowances ’ for rejects within seven days. Pre- . vious claims for rejects had been deI ducted from the millers. | Air Hannan: Is it possible to clear I up a consignment sent to Sydney in jseven days? ; Witness: Yes. “Will you say all other claims are made within seven days?” asked Mr | Hannan. ’ Witness: No. Within seven days, or a fortnight, or within a reasonable time. He had appointed adjusters to fix claims by the Midland Sawmilling Company and on one occasion a claim was reduced by half. Mr Hannan produced a letter dated January, 1928, to plaintiff, which stated that the timber would be rejected, and also that the claim would be settled and cleared up later. Mr Hannan, to plaintiff: “There were posts sent to the Chatham Islands by the defendant company and paid for by you, and when some were rejected, three months later, you deducted £2 from a payment to defendj ant?”

I Plaintiff: They were not rejects: they were undersized. There is a dif ference between timber and posts?

Mr Hannan: Yes, between red and 1 white pine, too? Plaintiff: Yes. One spots and the other doesn’t. The posts you speak of ! came to Greymouth, and they were not of a standard size and allowances j were made by an official of the defendant company on the wharf in Greymouth.

Mr Hannan; Can you explain how 1 the arrangement was made and no ali lowance was given until, three months ilater? 1 Plaintiff: I don’t keep the Midland I Company’s books, Mr Hannan.

To Mr Paterson: The defendant company did not reply to letters. Air Caldwell knew he disputed the rejection, and had admitted he (plaintiff) had a grievance, stating tha4 the buyers in Australia had been lax in sending particulars.

Mr Hannan said that the goods j were sold and delivered, and had acI tually been paid for. It had been the ■ practice of defendant and plaintiff, i and all other customers, that when I timber was inspected at the other end, i rejections as to size or quality were debited to the seller. Mr Robertson, himself, had not given notification ; within seven days. In this particular i case, on account of bad times, the i mills could not carry on. The Afid- ; land Sawmilling Co., it must be under--1 stood, contracted with Mr Robertson, | and not with the mills. John W. Caldwell, manager of the Midland Company, stated he had done

considerable business with the plaintiff. He produced a sheet of dealings with plaintiff over a period of three years. In October, 1927, plaintiff supplied timber to the defendant company to the value of £1237, and that amount was paid on October 26, 1927, less £3 Is 6d on some previous adjustment. It had not been the practice to make claims for rejected tim-

ber seven days after the arrival of vessels with timber, at Sydney. In the case of Johnston, the shipment had been refused by the consignee, and it had to be stored in Sydney and was not sold for mouths afterwards. This happened whenever the trade slackened. Actual claims in respect of allowances would be made several months after receipt; of the shipment. He produced a letter sent to the plaintiff company in 1928, regarding the timber, and it was a month or two after that before he knew what the claim would be, and which was dulv made. Most allowances were debited several months after receipt of the timber. Numerous claims were not 1 disputed. The only ones disputed were against mills which had gone out of business and from which there was no prospects of recovery. He understood that to be the position. His firm had sold posts to Mr Robertson. <‘Yes, ‘posts,’ Mr Robertson, seeing a, you are particularly anxious that they not be confused with timber,” pointed out witness, who continued that he could not say if any adjustment as to these posts was made on the Grey wharf. At any rate there was no entry in the company’s books of an adjustment, until the claim was received three months later. To Mr Paterson: Witness wrote to plaintiff in January, 1928, and in June plaintiff “woke up,” objecting to the advice concerning the rejections which were then being carried out. Mr Paterson: The debits were passed back to the millers, and you asked Mr Robertson to suffer your loss, after you bought the timber off him? Witness: No. If Robertson had got the debit notes in time, he would have been able to debit it to the millers and receive recompense. The delay

had prejudiced his chances of pay me nt.

To Mr Hannan: There was a rejection of timber from the Aratika Mill supplied to the defendant company in May and June, 1927. In respect of that, Mr Robertson was not debited with the allowance until twelve months later, and he took no exception, as the Aratika mill was a solvent one. Mr Paterson said that with mills such as Aratika. arrangements could be made with them, but not with the others. The Magistrate said that what had been the usual practice determined the case. There had been for certain reasons rejections in shipments on the Sydney side. It was stated that in regard to the Ward and Johnstone mills’ shipments, notices were given too late to plaintiff, and he lost his chance of recovering tho reductions from the original clients, Ward and Johnstone, whose mills had closed down. Mr Hannan had pointed out that plaintiff had made no objection to the delay in passing on the rejections in the Aratika mill shipments Has there been neglect on' the part of defendant? He did not see that there had been. The unfortunate thing was the bfhikruptcy of plaintiff’s two clients. There had been no negligence on the part of Mr Caldwell, in respect of the two rejections as to Ward’s and Johnstone’s mills, and on one occasion he had had a claim reduced from £l5 19s 2d to £7 14s 7d. Plaintiff would be non-suited. Witnesses’ expenses 15s and solicitor’s fee £2 2s would be allowed defendant.