FARMERS’-FARQUHARSON CASE.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume VI, Issue 271, 1 November 1916, Page 7

FARMERS’-FARQUHARSON CASE.

» ASSESSMENT of damages. ■J Mr. H. G. Smith, clerk of the Court ? aX on Monday morning de- ’ Evered" the Yeserved' judgment of Mr. - W. G. Kenrick, S.M., in the recent - litigation of the Hawke’s Bay Farmers - Co-op. Assn., Ltd. and Win. Farquhar- ' sbn. . " „ ? ’'The judgment was as rollon s : i ..This was an action by. plaintiff for ’ £193 9/10, and was heard by Mr. b, E, McCarthy, SAL, who gave judg- * meat for plaintiff for £127 6 - The defendant eoiiiiter-claiined for Club ■ 6/t, as .damages for breach of agreement ini selling 1125 ewes at a Ipwer price than per head, this being tte rpwrrp price placed on them by. B and as a second cause of aCkfflTdofendant claimed £9, being the value of pne bale of wool, packs, which stun' plaintiff admitted owing. Mr. McCyrthy heard the counter-claim and gyyajndgTnftrif. for defendant on his | cqanter-claim, but reserved the question t of what ' damages defendant had susy* tained until’an appeal had been heard P*toon the. judgment on the counter-claim -■ Tfqnly). The decision on the counter»cjjuih was upheld by the Appeal Court - and the matter is now referred back to thb l court id hear evidence to ascertain ghat damages the defendant sustained owing To the plaintiffs selling the sheep under .the reserved price of 33/6 per beadi This evidence hfas how been heard by me, ’ and I have to assess the da m- * ages. A letter dated 11th March, IPI6, from plaintiffs to defendant has been put in evidence with a view of reducing the damages to a nominal amount, upon the graund that plaintiffs * a day after the’sale gate defendant the ■ • opport unitv of repudiating the sale and ; offered to return the sheep. The effect - of such, an offdr would undoubtedly re- ■ ducc rhe damages materially, but the offer is not a straight-out offer to return ' the whole line of sheep, hut merely 360 * ' “and“possibly the whole line,” as - - stated in the letter, when plaintiffs ; state “thf s / will expect defendant to pay off his account to them at- once. This is a conditional offer to return the whole line if plaintiffs can do so, ano consequently in iby opinion cannot affect the question of damages. I have, therefore, to consider what is the - actual damage defendant has suffered. ... On the evidence before me I am satisfied defendant could not have kept lus sheep for more than three weeks on the • land he had secured without then edittg back in condition, further that it tvou-d be difficult, but not impossible, to secure further grazing for the sheep, probably af a higher price, owing to the dry weather. There is evidence also Saiif tn some degree defendant was jimifed in the time in which he must sell the sheep without waiting for a Bigh market price; as he bought the sheep without paying therefor from ” plaintiffs, and was indebted to plaintiffs; All these facts must be considered ■and the cost of keeping the sheep until sold and placing the rams with tbem, which- must be done, in March. I come = to-the conclusion on the evidence that 5. there was no considerable rise in ewes * natif after two months from the ] (-th J of March, and that the loss sustained hv the defendant under all the circuniatances amounts to 1/- per head o;> 1125 ewes, equal to £56 5/-. I give judgment therefore for that amount, togetlier with £9, the amount of the mjmknd eaiise of action, admitted to be due to defendant, a total of £65 with costs on that scale. Mr. Cooper, rif Palmerston, appeared for the de- ; fendant, and Mr. T. H. G. Lloyd icr . the plaintiff company.- —“Evening i News.”