SHIPMENT OF LAMBS.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XIII, Issue 186, 24 July 1923, Page 6

SHIPMENT OF LAMBS.

FARMER’S OBJECTION TO SALE AT SEA. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was given on Monday (says the Wellington “Post.”) in the case of John Curwen Hare against the Feilding Farmers ’ Freezing Co., Ltd., an appeal from a decision given in favour of the responent, who were the defendants in the Court below. The question raised in the appeal was whether respondent was guilty of a breach of duty in soiling certain frozen lambs, which •were on board the Port Victor ou her voyage to London. Tho appellant agreed to join with other sheepfarmers in what is called ‘ ‘ pooling ’ ’ their sheep and lambs—having them killed and their carcases shipped in a steamer. There were 24 owners who so agreed. “Tho usual custom,” said His Honour the Chief Justice (.Sir Robert Stout), in tho course of his judgment, ‘‘is to sell such carcases as if they belonged to one owner, and nbt to sell the carcases belonging to the owners separately. In most cases the carcases are not sold till they reach London, and are landed there, but the selling of carcases whilst on their way to London is not unknown. No conditions or terms as to the sale were laid down or agreed to at the time the carcases were shipped. The price of lambs was then only 7d per lb. The price rose after the shipment, and tho total cargo was sold whilst the steamer was on her way to London at B]d per lb, less agent’s commission, viz, 2Ad per cent. When the vessel reached London the price had advanced to Hid per lb.

“As there was no agreement amongst the owners of the ‘pool’ and no direction by the plaintiff that the carcases should not be sold until the vessel reached London the defendant cannot in my opinion be held guilty of any neglect of duty. What the plaintiff did after ho knew of the sale shows that he did not then consider that the defendant had acted improperly. The vessel left for London in the end of December and on the 2nd 1922, the defendant sold the cargo. On the 6th January. 1922, the defendant company posted a cheque to the appellant for payment to his order, being the proportional share of the proceeds less an advance he had got, and lie received the cheque, paying, it into his hank, and made no objections to the sale. It was not till some time afterwards that he raised any question abbtit the irregularity or invalidity of the sale. If the sale had been contrary to what he believed to have lieen his rights, his or his instructions. he would no doubt have at once complained. I am of opinion that the respondent had full power to act as it did. The sale was left to the respondent without any specific instructions and the selling of carcases at sea is not unusual. The appeal should be dismissed with costs on the middle scale as from a distance.” The remaining members of the Court, Mr. Justice Sim, Mr. Justice Hosking, .and Mr Justice Stringer, concurred in the judgment of the Chief Justice.