AN APPLE CLAIM

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LVI, 12 April 1922, Page 5

AN APPLE CLAIM

(United Press Association ! WELLINGTON/ April 11

Argument was continued this afternoon in the case of the Aurora Trading Co., Ltd. v. Nelson Freezing Company Ltd. Mr Myers, in continuation of argument for the appellant company, contended tIRR the evidence showed the apples were delivered to respondent’s store in good condition and came out damaged. - The evidence also showed that there were defective storage conditions in respondent’s store in that the apples were improperly stacked and in that there was insufficient ventilation. The onus was on the respondent company to show that it had not been negligent in its care of tho apples. Mr Skerrett. K. 0., for the respondent company, maintained that the onus lay on the plaintiff to show connection between damage to the apples and the alleged negligence of the respondent. It also lay on appellant to show that tho damage was not. due to any inherent defect iu the apples. The storage system of tho respondent had been in existence for ten years and had proved satisfactory. The case was not concluded when the Court adjourned until to-morrow. WELLINGTON, This Day

The Court of Appeal continued' ihis morning, the hearing of argument, in the case of the Aurora Trading Co. v.. Neison Freezing Co. Mr Skerrelt continued his argument on behalf of the respondent company, dealing with the evidence at length. There was, lie said, evidence before the. judge in the Supreme Court, which evidence lie accepted, that the damage to the fruit was caused (a) by fruit collapse due to wet season or (b) by reason of apples from young trees grown on high country being kept 100 long in the cooling chamber, or (c) by reason' of possible defects in the manner of picking. The Appeal Court, reserved judgment in the Aurora Trading Company case.