A DEAL IN CHAFF.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLI, Issue 134, 8 June 1907, Page 3

A DEAL IN CHAFF.

A case, was heard in the Magistrate's Court yesterday in which Joseph Robert Blackburn mad© a claim against George Gilmour. The statement of claim was to the following effect: —That there had been on the part of defendant a breach eff contract in that he failed as agreed on the Bth of January, 1907, to sell to the plaintiff a stack of oat-sheaf chaff estimated to contain 20 tons or thereabouts, at a price of £2 10s per ton; that the plaintiff rendered service to the defendant by cutting 40 acres of his crops at 4s 6d per acre, and it was mutually agreed that the amount due for such service, about £9, should be retained by defendant as part payment for the said chaff. It was also stated that the plaintiff had always been ready and willing to complete the payment of the purchase money, but defendant had sold the chaff \o another at a higher price, and further that plaintiff could not obtain chaff now of a similar quality for less than £3 5s per ton, to which must be added 10s per ton for cartage. Mr Conolly appeared for the plaintiff, and defendant was also represented by counsel. Part of the money claimed, £9 for cutting his crops, had already been paid into Court by defendant, with costs on that basis. John Reid, manager for the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company, said in January last £2 10s was the market value of chaff in the stack. Now it is as high as 70s and 72s 6d. About one month ago 60s to 65s was the price paid. Supposing the chaff had to be carted about 9 miles, it would cost 10s per ton to have it done. Cross-examined: If bought in the stack the vendor would have to cut the chaff. Chaff had gradually risen from £2 10s in January to £3 and £3 ss. In February the market price was 555, and the seller would have to cart it.

Joseph Robert Blackburn, farmer, reading at Grassmere, said he knew the defendant Gilmour. In January last he entered into a contract with him as stated in the statement of claim. It was arranged where the particular stack was to be erected. It was to be stacked in a little paddock at the back of the house, and left there till plaintiff wanted it. The chaff was not stacked as promised. The arrangements made with Gilmour were such that he was entitled to allow the stack to remain as long as he pleased. After cutting a crop of about 40 acres for Gilmour, he agreed to take the chaff. Gilmour said he would pay him forcutting the crop, but witness replied that the amount owing could go towards paying for the chaff. Until yesterday the £9 had been retained. The stack was not thatched, but witness was willing to take it if it was in a-good condition. He received a letter from Gilmour eai'ly in February asking him to cut the stack. Witness was trying to get a machine, and he wrote to Mr Gilmour, asking him to let him know when the machine arrived. Some time in March Gilmour told him that he would not let him have the chaff. His reason, he said, was that he had sold it to. another at a higher price. He further said that the agreement entered into with witness was no good. Several times Gilmour asked him to accept the £9 owing, but he insisted upon it being retained as part payment for the chaff. Cross-examined: If the stack had been burned he did not know if he would have to pay for it, but expected that he would. He knew that the stack was so situated that it would interfere with ploughing, but if Mr Gilmour had kept his promise the stack would not have been built where it was. No arrangement was made as to the time when payment was to be made, and no limitation of time was stated for the removal of the stack. If chaff had gone down witness would have still paid the 50s per ton. Counsel for defendant contended that there was no contract, and the letter produced was not evidence that one had been made. He asked for a non-suit. In order that a legal contract be made something must be naid as a deposit, and this had not been

done. Mr Conolly said there was no doubt that a contract had been made, as the letter produced . and conversations which had taken place between plaintiff and defendant showed.

judgment was reserved