A BARLEY CASE.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLV, Issue 139, 19 June 1911, Page 8

A BARLEY CASE.

A. WIFFEN AND 00. v. LOAN COMPANY.

Thi, was a claim for compensation for the failure of the defendants to supply to the plaintiff v quantity of barley stored for the j.laintiff, which was not dcliveied on wairant. The total amount ol tti'q ctenm was £250. Mr A. Rogers, with him Mr G. P. Rogers, appeared for the plaintiff, and 3Lr McCallum for the defendants.

. Arthur Wiffcn, the plaintiff, mid thnfc he puichaved large quantity cf bar]ey from the doien,ctant company " in July and August, 1909. He had all , tho grain warrants. The sale not© ,vn , cannot tion with 1 the" B.Q. brands stdtod that there wore 261 sa.cks. Ail lie, got was 213 bacivfr oi thi^ > total, there bcin-r a shortage of 48 sacks. Thje sale note of the W.Bl brand specified about 300 sack, at 2& 9d f.Ojib., Pioton. Mild! the grain note for th|s iot stated thisvt lluro won* 201. Th» next sale noto was for about 400 basks, and tho grujji." warrant 434. Farmar's sale note was for 280, i'.o.b., Picton, and the WArrunt set this lot oat atf 268 sacks. '- His son, Montague, went to Picton to ©satnimn tho "bat-ley. jTJs© witness bold q, i^xo^ 7500' packs > s*t TJs Dd to m hyd'noy hoiks. T-Jf^tiefcted' 3s 6d per bushol. H» ttsk] £d.sjor sjvck tK»r week stoi-go in" Pi'eton. The barley tv as storod tliore until August', 1910. After three months from tho date of th« sales the purchasers p?iid Storage. There was «. (shortage of 130 sacks oi the total of about 1900 sacks bought from tho dof end-ant company. Mr Lambie oume to see him when the shortage bad boon Reported to the defendants. MK-'lawnbie cculd not umtarsjband how tfie shortage occurred, and' cteted that he wo^ld make inquiucs at their Picton store. Four days iotar ba told the witness that he hdd bovn unable to trace th« ihi&sing grain. Mr Irambie said he waa anxious to t.ottle the m.'itber anncably, and asked the witness if he would take p lino which *hft company ha^ in their Blenheim sLoro to make up the hplance. Tho witness ngreod to do this*. The nest tl.ing ho heard wm when the otoronum Pi-mo und told him that be could not paea the grain, as it was not up ', ix> the sampl© upon which th© "other gr.iin was ( pvrobased. A good deal of*'it wa§ rubbish, and not fit for,'/ipaltmg purpoaw. 'There were ali^tifc half-ardozen pa^cks which could n&te**paai&ed, but tho othei' wa^, pnro, .unadulterated rubbish. He communicated 'again with Mr Lambie, r and he came and examined the grain, and it was arranged <*o send it back, and that another sample should be sent round. The witness was asked *• if his storemau would go round to the compaily^s store ajnd inspect this ,gr^i^. The^ store- 4 man reported t!&it it was mixed, a.nd' , that some of -it contained weWil. ; lJSome time later ,tfae witness <3receiTs<i , » letter 'from; the defendant -company jßsUing, hjm to remove hiß -baclef tfta-* him that'tinlessat was removed tie would be charged at>the 'rate of 2? per sack per week storage. On March" 3rd J J. Corry'and M. Wiffen,£nBpected the barley. He h«4 not been offered anything up to sample.. He claimed''£lo for storage oh grain he never' had. The witness • stated thafr^ She sold Farmar's lot early ip the year^ 1910 at 3s 6d n«r bushel, and wrote a letter to defendants on August 17 and sent a warrant to them. In reply to the letter he got a debit note from the , defendants for £12 6s 9d, dated 19th August, 1910. The next ihing lie • heard was that the defendants had refused to give delivery of the grain. He subsequently received a letter from Mr Churchward, who was acting for Mr Farmar, demanding a refund of r - £160 paid for the barley, as.the grain ' was of no. use .to,him' by: reason of the fact that the defendants had refused 46 give delivery of it.. He was next sued by Farmar and Co., and he-.(wit-aaes^) was instrumental in: having the g resent defendant company added; bjectioii was made by Mr Conolly to this procedure.;, Mr Conolly ©d tlia^t they were joined ex- pa'rte, and that if. the 'defendants' names Were mot struck out h^' ■■■' woulil, Idave the; court. -Thefmatgisitrate did not^ stride ' the names of the defendaxits; out. iaml Mr Conolly wetit out of court. Judgr ment was against; ; Mm (the Mtnessl,' and' he liadM:pay, costs and also <Jamfejges of £22 6s, and refund.the mjoney" to farmar iaiid Co. ">'. This was the re- ! suit of' defendants* refusal to give deJiv'ery of the grain sold;to Farmar a-nd-Co. 'He'.'boiught at 2s sd,and sold* at: 3s 6d a Bushel 'to-Far-mar; and C 0. ,: arid the difference of the price. (£SB) was what he lost in addition to the copts of the action. ■'■•■■■' -To'"Mr •McCallum: Each quality of bailey in; each wan-ant stood by itself y • and the storage related - only to the separate lots of • • barley. Mr Reid never spok^ a*-word to him.about th» '/sale.".-The.'' 'oompaHy did .not give up «.ny lieni, b«t)the position was tha^ the company., had no right to hold isacks ■of barley for storage when it: owed him money over and above his indelbtedhe;ss; for .storage; ~ The market opened at 4s 9d last year, and the ■barley he'got back from Mr Farmar was worth about 4$ per- bushel. . ; (Left Sitting.) •.

At the Town Hall-"oil Wednesday evening the bushranging picture, *'Frank Gardiner," will be screened. A synoposis of the fiim will appear in to-niorrow'js issue.. * '• ■ v

A first.offeriding/inebriate:. was'convicted and discharged ..at the .Magisr ■sfcrate's"' CmirtVtKis^ timing. ' '/

Rules of tlje ,ga me of hockey obtainable at ''Express''Office.' No player should be. without one. Price, 3d. *

For chronic chest complain is — Woods' Great Peppermint Cure: Is 6d, 2s 6d. .- . • .