A DEAL IN APPLES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18814, 15 September 1924, Page 5

A DEAL IN APPLES.

QUESTION OF IDENTITY.

VERY CONFLICTING EVIDENCE.

AUCKLAND FIRM'S LIABILITY,

Judgment in the case of Montcre Fruitgrowers' Association v. • Wah Jang and Co., Auckland, has been-given in the Magistrate's Court at Motueka by Mr. T. E. Maunsell, S.M. The claim was one for £21 16s, as the balance of purchase money duo on a sale of apples. The defendants admitted the sale, but pleaded a breach of warranty as to quality, the fruit having been sold as fancy grade. The magistrate, in reviewing the evidence—a portion of which was taken in Auckland —said that the defendants' had submitted certain apples for inspection to Mr. Harnett, the chief Government fruit inspector in Auckland, also Mr. Howell, another Government fruit inspector, and Mr. Stoddart, a fruiterer. All these witnesses said that the fruit was not fancy grade. It was short of colour, infected with black spot or scab and spray russet and faulty in shape. This evidence was corroborated by two auctioneers and also by two members of the defendant firm, On the other hand similarly strong evidence was given by witnesses, whose credit and character were beyond reproach, at Motueka, for the plaintiff. This evidence was hopelessly irreconcilable with the evidence of the defence. The defence sought to establish that the fruit was not examined and passed as fancy grade by the Motueka Government inspector. In support of this the fact was relied on that there were no Government sticker labels on the fruit. This allegation, however, says the judgment, was disposed of by the Motueka Government inspector, Mr. Stratford, who was> a witness for the plaintiffs. Mr. Stratford, said Mr. Maunsell, swore that he saw the fruit as it wa3 being packed and had no complaint to make. The fruit had none of the defects referred to in the Auckland evidence. He classed the line as quite equal to fancy, and as above the average. He explained the absence of labels by the fact that Government stickers wero not being used in Motueka at the time. After traversing other evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs, the magistrate remarked: "It is unthinkable that these reputable citizens could have embarked upon a conspiracy of fraud to swindle the defendant. 'It is argued by the plaintiffs' counsel that it is the defendant who is perpetrating a fraud. I prefer not to come to such a drastic conclusion against the defendant firm, whose members belong to a race universally acknowledged to* be conspicuously honest in business. At the same time I cannot do otherwise than conclude that there has been a .mistake and that the apples inspected In Auckland are not identical with the apples Bhipped to defendant. If any farther proof is needed there is this: Mr. Harnett says the cases he inspected had labels on them. . . . Yet it has been conclusively proved by the witnesses in Motueka that the plaintiff association put no labels insido or outside. They never have done and, in fact, do not possess any. . . . Moreover, before the Auckland witnesses inspected the fruit the plaintiffs' fruit had been in defendants' possession some considerable time, } increasing the possibility of a mistake." Mr. Maunsell said that counsel for defendants had contended that the act of plaintiffs in authorising the sale of the fruit by auction after rejection amounted to an implied assent that the defendants were justified in their action. This contention, however, was untenable, as the correspondence showed tht plaintiffs' desire was to minimise the loss. Moreover, plaintiffs then believed that defendants complaints related to plaintiffs* fruit, whereas he (the magistrate) found as a fact that it did not. Judgment was given for plaintiffs for the amount claimed and costs.