TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XXXVII, Issue 93, 5 May 1903, Page 2

TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

On resuming this morning, Mr Maginnity applied his argument to the measure of damages in such cases, etc. He called the attention of tbe Court to numerous authorities, and also to the provisions of Section 54 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1895. He therefore urged that under the authority .of that section the Court would be justified in concluding that the illness of the plaintiffs directly and materially resulted from the commodity sold' by the defendant to the plaintiffs. Mr Pitt, in his address, said that in this case it was admitted that the defendant was innocent. The defendant did. not manufacture the oats, but sold them in the same way they were received. An attempt was made to hold the defendant liable for a noxious latent effect in the goods sold. Mr Pitt contended that it is and was intended to have been an action in tort, but with insufficient allegation. If this was an action of breach of contract then the wrong party was sued. It was one of tlie first principles in contract that no one could be sued unless he were a party to it. The claim for damages showed tbat it was an action in tort. ' The K brand of rolled oata was a nianu- j factured artielc, and not a raw material. If a person bought a jnanuf actured article with a specific trade mark, then the vendor was not responsible. The Court then adjourned for luncheon. On resuming this afternoon Mr Maginnity replied to Mr Pitt* and contended ! that the plaintiffs were j not strangers to the contract, and that Mr Thorn might be said to be acting as principal for himself, and agent for his wile and children, for whom he was statutory bound to provide for. . If Mr Pitt's construction of proviso to Section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1895 be correct, no person would be safe in purchasing from a retail store. His Honor reserved judgment until 11 a.m. next Wednesday.