THE ROLLED OATS CASE
CLAIM AGAINST A GROCERY
JUDGMENT RESERVED.
After we went tojpress yesterday, the case of William Barrie Thorn, Charlotte Thorn, and two children named Hazel Thorn and Walter Henry Thorn v. Lewis Treacher Bowden, grocer, for .£225 damages for suffering and loss sustained through partaking of roUed oats sold to the plaintiffs by the defendant and containing arsenic was continued. Mr Maginnity appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Pitt for te defendant. Mr Maginnity addressed the Court for one hour and three-quarters, and quoted numerous legal authorities to justify his contention that it was not an action for tort but an action for breach of warranty under Section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act. The Court adjourned at 4 p.m. until the following day.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NEM19030505.2.9.1
Bibliographic details
Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XXXVII, Issue 93, 5 May 1903, Page 2
Word Count
128THE ROLLED OATS CASE Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XXXVII, Issue 93, 5 May 1903, Page 2
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in