TRANSACTION IN OATS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20366, 21 September 1929, Page 14

TRANSACTION IN OATS.

CLAIM FOR OVER £SOOO.

PRODUCE FIRMS AT LAW.

ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT;

[BY TELEOBAPn.—PRESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, Friday.

Broach of contract was • alleged in a claim for £5470, plus interest at 8 per cent., made in tho Supremo Court to-day by tho Now Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company, Limited, against Wright, Stephenson and Company, Limited. Tho Chief Justice, Hon. M. Myers, presided. Mr. A. Gray, K.C., and Mr. C. A. L. Treadwell appeared for tho plaintiff company, and Mr. H. F. O'Loary and Mr. H. E. Evans for tho defendant company. Tho statement of claim 'set out that from May 7, 1928, tho plaintiff company, at Bluff, purchased from different sources 5649 sacks of oats. Payment was made to the defendant company. Tho oats were stored in defendant company's store. Payment was made and warrant® and graders' certificates were delivered to tho plaintiff company It was stated that the oats had been branded as described in tho warrants and certificates. Howover, tho defendant company did not brand and mark tho sacks of oats as required by tho terms of tho con ti act

On February 16, 1929, plaintiff company asked that tho oats which were in store at Edendalo, Southland, bo delivered to Bluff. Upon tho arrival of tho consignment at Bluff it was noticed that they were not branded, and plaintiff company refused to accept delivery. Soon afterwards this happened again with another

consignment. In defence it was stated that, for the purpose of identifying the different parcels of oats, for which the store warrants and graders' certificates wero required, a distinctive mark was placed on a few sacks of each parcel. Tho custom or practice of the trade was to leavo tho sacks so marked until delivery was required by the owner of tho oats, and then, when the sacks wero going out, to brand each with the particular mark which identified tho parcel from which tho oats camo, or with such other mark or marks as tho owner might specify.

When tho plaintiff company in February, 192y. requested delivery of tho oats, through inadvertence the sacks went out of tho storo unbranded. As soon as that was discovered the defendant company offered to do the necessary work of branding, but tho plaintiff company refused. The marks or brands referred to wero merely for the purpose of identifying tho particular parcel which had been appropriated to the contract, and wore in no way warranties. When Mr Gray was presenting his case for tho plaintiff His Honor interrupted by saying: "I suppose your case is, shortly, that defendants did not deliver ttieso goods and cannot deliver them 1" Mr. Gray: That is precisely tho case. Ho added that there was little in disputo except as to the practice of branding.

His Honor: There may bo a little more in it tnan that. It is not an ordinary case of the sale of goods and breach of contract. I can see possibilities of something more than that.

The evidence of several witnesses was heard tor the plaintiff company. During the courso of one witness' evidence His Honor remarked that it was not for him to deal with motives or the question of morality, but he thought that if oats had gone up in price nothing more would have been heard of the case.

The hearing was adjourned until Monday.