MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CIII, Issue 12158, 23 March 1900, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday,. March 22. (Before Hr R. Beethara, SM.) Civil Cases. —ln the following cases tie defendants did not appear, and judgment ■was entered for the plaintiffs for the following amounts with costs: —H. Berry and Cd. v. G. Grant, claim £1 9s Id; I. Allen v. G. Bennett, £6; S. W. Neate v. E. J. Stokes, 6s 2di; W. Strange and Co. v. P. Roberts, £9 16s Id; G. W. Russell v. H. W. Smith, £4; same v. W. Jesson, £3; same v. W. Brook, £1; W. Bates v. E. J. Lux ton, £4 Os 9d; W. T- House v. J. Alfrey, £1 8s 3d; T. Taylor v. Swinard, £1 18s 4d; E. M’Dermott v. R. Hannah, £2 7s 9d.—Elizabeth M. Day and Elizabeth E. Reynolds v. Allan Hopkins and Rose A. Lawrence, claim £75 7s 4d, in respect to the disputed sale of . a house property. -Tr Hoban, for the plaintiffs; said the dispute had been settled outside the Court by the payment of the amount of the claim and costs by the defendants., The plaintiffs would not now appear. The case was then called on, and there being no appearance it was struck out. —S. G. Unwin v. J. Woolfreys, claim £1 15s 3d. Judgment for the plaintiff'with costs.—Annie Seaward v. Dierick Arps, claim £lO. Mr Byrne for the plaintiff, and Mr Donnelly for the defendant. The plaintiff was nonsuited with costs. —E. A. Broughton v. E. Vincent, claim £24’ 12s. Mr Stringer for -the -plaintiff, and Mr Harper for the defendant. The claim was in respect to some sheep which had been sold by auction to the plaintiff by the defendant, at the Darfield Saleyardis, on July 14, through Mr Jennings, auctioneer for Messrs . Pyne and Go. The sheep had been .sold as being in, lamb, and after keeping Them for sonae .time- the plaintiff discovered that the animals • were .not .in -lamb. :He therefore Sued for breach of warranty. Mr Jennings gave that positive’instructions had been received by his firm from-the defendant to sell the sheep ais being in lamb. In defence it was stated that no warranty had been given of the sheep being in lamb. They were simply represented as having been running with rams. The case turned on the question as to whether the auctioneer had received authority to sell the sheen as being in lamb. Mr Harper contended that, unless Mr Jennings had been (specially instructed to put the sheep up 'as being in lamb, he had no right to do it on his own account. The defendant’s statement wais a representation of expectation only, which distinguished it from a warranty, and the plaintiff must prove that Mr Vincent gave the alleged instructions in the face of his absolute denial. He quoted! several' cases in support of his argument. Mr Stringer, in defence, said that an' affirmation at the time of sale was a warranty. This affirmation had been made by the'auctioneer, who made it with authority, and the. plaintiff was entitled to recover damages. It was difficult to see that Mr Jennings, without any interest in the matter, should book different instructions from those which he had received from the defendant. Mr Beetham said that the defendant’s action in letting the sheep run with the rams beforehand showed that he had reason to believe they were in lamb, and he said so to. influence their sale. There, was the entry in the auctioneer’s notebook, describing the sheep as being in lamb, and he must hold that a warranty had been given. It was desirable . that the question as to what constitutes a warranty should go to appeal, . as it was a very important matter, and he would be pleased if the defendant would' take the matter to a higher. Court. Judgment would-be for plaintiff for £l6 4s, at tbe rate of 4s a head.