Hastings S.M. Court.

Hastings Standard, Issue 137, 3 October 1896, Page 3

Hastings S.M. Court.

(Before Mr S. Turnbull, S.M.) The case, MeCorkindale v. McSherry, before the Court yesterday, in which the plaintiff sued for .£'3s damages for breach of contract, was watched with some interest. It appears that Mr S. Popplewell received instructions from Mr McSherry in 1891 to sell a section of his for £25, and some correspondence ensued in which Mr McSherry practically endorsed his verbal instructions. Mr Popplewell could not effect a sale at the time, but some twelve months afterwards he disposed of the section to Mr A. McC'orkindale for .£'2s, receiving £o as a deposit, lie then wrote to Mr McSherry informing hint of the transaction, and receiving no reply he interviewed him personally at Te Ante and received his sanction to the sale. Later, Mr McSherry refused to sign the transfer, and denied Popplewcll's authority to act as his agent. Mr McSherry\ admitted the verbal authority and the letter, but stated that the authority granted was temporary and bad lapsed, lie denied having given any subsequent authority to Popplewell, and during their conversation in Te Ante he told liitu distinctly the land was not for sale. Mr McC'orkindale, sworn, said he suffered a loss of about £ls in not getting this section. When he thought the bargain with Mr Me Sherry's agent was concluded, he bought up 'six adjoining sections to form a paddock, which lie would not have done had he known that this section was not his. Mr C'ollinge, Town Clerk, said he valued the section in dispute at .£'2l. The value of Mr McC'orkindale's other sections was depreciate d as a whole by Mr McSherry\s not being included. As the evidence was merely one man's word against another, the question of agency could not be decided, and plaintiff was nonsuited with costs £■l.