A DEAL IN OATS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20828, 21 September 1929, Page 14

A DEAL IN OATS.

ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT. WELL-KNOWN FIRMS AT-LAW. (Peb United Press Association.) * i. WELLINGTON, September 20. A breach of contract was alleged in a claiDji for £5470, plus interest at 8 per cent., which was made in the Supreme Court to-day by the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company, Ltd., against Messrs Wright, Stephenson and Co.. Ltd the Chief Justice (Air Justice Myers) presided, Mr A. Gray, K.C., and Mr , Treadwell, appeared for the piamtiff company; and Air H. F. O’Leary and Air H. E. Evans. for the defendant company. . ■ . The statement, of claim set out that i°T>, 7, 1928, the plaintiff company purchased from different sources 504 J sacks of oats. Payment was made to the defendant company. The 1 oats were stored in the defendant company's store at Gore. Payment was made and warrants and .graders’ certificates were delivered to.the plaintiff company. It was stated that - the oats had been, branded as described in the. warrants and certificate. However, the defendant, com,‘Ld Pot brand .and mark'the sacks ot oats a 8 required by the terms of the contract. On February 10, 1929, the plaintiff company ■ asked that the oats should be delivered to Bluff. Upon the arrival of the consignment at Bluff it was, noticed they were not branded .and the plaintiff company refused to' accept delivery ._ Soon afterwards this happened a ß a m -another consignment. j For the defence it was staled that for the purpose of -identifying 1 the different parcels of for YRbicli the store war* rants and graders’ certificates, were .required a distinctive mark was placed on a few sacks of each parcel. The custom or practice of the' grade trade was to leave the stacks so marked until delivery was required by the - owner of the oats, ana then,-when,the sacks were going out, to brand each; • but with the particular mark which identified the .parcel 'from which the oats came, or, with such other mark or t marks as the owner might specify. When the plaintiff “company in February, 1929, requested delivery of the og,tß the sacks, through inadvertence, went , out of the -store unbranded. As soon as this was discovered the defendant company offered to do the necessary work of f, r f n^ Ulg V|k Ut plaintiff company refused., The marks or brands referred of identitj mg . the particular parcel which had been, appropriated to the contract, and m no way warranties. When Air-Gray was presenting his case his Honor remarked: “I suppose your sh °h tly ’ tljat tlle defendants did them? theSe gooc s au< T cannot deliver Air Gray: That is precisely, the case. There was. little in dispute except as fo °f branding, in h rtTfi, There may be a little more InjVf I? tha . t " J* oot an ordinary sa,e of goods and breach of 1 aan see possibilities of something more thqn that. The .evidence of several witnesses was heard for the plaintiff company. . rr Ull ? g course of one witness’s evitTtr'u v , ema . r |) ed that it was not for him to deal with motives or the S°j morality; but he thought that gone up in price nothing more would have been heard-of the case dnv heann " ' ras Mourned until Mon-