CIVIL SITTINGS. Tuesday, June 10.

Otago Witness, Issue 1897, 12 June 1890, Page 30

CIVIL SITTINGS. Tuesday, June 10.

(Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.) LOW V. THE QUEEN, Claim £1575, for alleged breach of contract and damages. Sir It Stout (instructed by Mr Fletcher, of Gore) appeared for the suppliant ; and Mr Haggitt (Orown solicitor) for the Government. In this case the suppliant in his petition set forth that in March 1888 the Government entered into a contraot, to extend to the 31st March 1889, with the Government to breed ferrets for the Sheep department at the rate of 7s 6d per head ; that it was agreed that on the expiry of the contraot the rabbit inspector had the option of taking the balance of the stook at the same price, provided that the total number of ferrets did not exceed 4000 in all. It was also stated that there was a further contract, expiring on the 31st March 1890, which it was alleged the Government had sought to repudiate on the 31ofc March 1889, after which the suppliant had delivered and the defendant had taken delivery of and paid for 600 ferrets. To parry out the alleged contract the suppliant had given up his proper business and had leased land for bree iing purposes. The sum of £750 was claimed for breach of contraot, and £BVS as damages. The statement for the defence denied the principal allegations, but admitted that the contracts had been entered 'into with the plaintiff by Messrs T. Miles and T. W. M'Kay, who had no authority from the Government to enter into such contracts. Sir B. Stout, in opening, characterised the action of the Government in this case as repudiation, a polioy hitherto adopted only by the Republican Governments of South America. He alleged that the various Acts of Parliament dealing with the destruction of rabbits gave the inspector power to enter into such contracts as that which was now sued upon. As to the bonajides of the plaintiff in the matter, there could be no doubt about that. He pointed out that if the contracts were good as terminating on the 31st March 1889. they must be equally good as terminating on 31st March 1890. Sir E. Stout read and referred at some length to the correspondence between Government, and the plaintiff, in which, he pointed out, the latter contract at any rate was virtually admitted as existent. If the Government were going to use this kind of defence no man would be f>afe in taking a Government contract, which would injure the Governmeat in this way : that Government tenderers would add so much for risk, and Government would have to pay more for their contracts. With regard to the amount of damage sued for, that had bsen assessed at the amount that would have accrued in profit 1.0 plaintiff had the contracts been carried out. He called Thomas Tudor Williams M'Kay, formerly rabbit inspector for the Clutba district, who gave evidence to the effect that from May 1888 he had been out of the department for a couple of months. He had received a circular with instructions as to breeding ferrets, in pursuance c f which he had entered into several contracts with different persons, of whom plaintiff was one. In order to breed ferrets satisfactorily and at a proflt it was necessary for a contract to extend for two or three years nt least. Cross-examined : Witness entered into the contracts a day or two before he left the department, and he nfterwards, at the request of the department, went round and Baw tho contractors for the purpose of terttrnat.ing the contracts. Thomas John Miles, sub-inspector of sheep and rabbits for the district; of Tuapeka, gave evidence as to receipt of the circular, and as to having entered into similar contracts. The Government were still using ferrets for the destruction of rabbits, but were only paying 5s per head for them. James Macdonald, farmer, formerly eight years sheep inspector for Southland, (javo evidence to the effect thai-, in obtaining ferrets for a similar purpose, lie had always acted without reference to headquarters. Allan Low, plaintiff , gavp evidr>nco in support of liU cKfra, f.nr! aNted hia case as tob forth in the st.itemciif. of claim. PUiniilf was oross f xp.ninied at length by Mr ir-i<<Kitt, and Buirt (hut he lmd not personally leased livid for rlif- breei'ii'f,' o" Wreto, buL liad gone in with a man named ! 'i;;j-s, who Ij<\<l a lejee of tho land ■ Jiicli he used tor 'the purpose Ifi opite of boltif; tr-ld t'-iai. the inopector had exceeded l)ie powers in ci term^ into the contiact, witness insisted on its bein,,' ctrr'ed out.. Gporfce Low, brother of the plaintiff, stated that lie had entered into an agreement with his brother to simply him -rfil.h mope'y for the fulfilment of contnets with Uie Government. Ho had loßt about £100 in consequence. John Thomson, storekeeper at Malaura, stated that breeding ferrets would coot about 4a per head.

Temple Roderick Tanner stated that he bad had a contract to breed ferrets for the Government for three years from 1887 to 1890, and his contract had been cancelled in consequence of witness having bought ferrets. Vincent West deposed that ho had bred ferrets for a contractor with the Government, and gave evidence as to the price for the same. Frederick Buckland also deposed to having entered into contracts with the Government for the supply of ferrets, which extended to two and three years. This concluded the case for the plaintiff. Mr Haggitt argued that the rabbit inspector had no authority to enter into the contracts on behalf of her Majesty the Queen, the Governor, or of the General Government of New Zealand under " The Babbit Nuißauce Act 1882" or Amendment Act 1886, and that no speoial authority had been given. The form of contraot provided was accompanied by instructions, and showed that the contraot must be from summer to summer. Then, assuming the contracts to be binding, they were unilateral ; the Government had power to determine them, and the Government did determine them by giving the plaintiff notice of avoidance and retusal to be bound by them. Directly the contracts came under the notice of the authorities they said that contracts could not be entered into beyond the 31st of March 1889. The suppliant could not say that there waß not full notice to him that if he went on breeding after the 31st of March the Government would not take them; to this notice he aatented, and the ferrets bred up to 31st August, and all the breeding stock he had at the end of that time, were taken from him. There was no appropriation of money for such an expenditure beyond the date mentioned, and there was no authority from the General Assembly to anybody— nob even to the Executive Government — to enter into any such contract. On the question of heaping up damages, the learned counsel said there never was a worse case than this of a man taking advantage of a slip made by an inferior officer, and the only satisfactory thing about that, he had done so at a loss to himself. Sir R Stout said the points raised were easily answered, and that when such points were taken one could understand why it was that juries were said to go against a Government. He would undertake to say that if any merchant had attempted to set up the defence here made, he would be scouted out of any commercial community where there was any morality. It was plain that there was simply an attempt to defeat a bargain because they could save half a"orown on each forret. Mr Haggitt : That is not so. Sir R. Stout replied that the best proof was to be found in Mr Buckland's testimony, for they had given Mr Ihickland a bonus to get out of the contract with him, and afterwards bought ferrets from him at da each. The learned counsel then dealt with the law points raised. Mr Haggitt replied, and called A. Douglas, sheep inspector, who deposed that the Sheep department has had the administration of the Rabbit Act. Since 1883 the name form of ferret agreement as that produced had been in use, and had been made from year to year. To Sir R. Stout: Witness might have told Sir Robert, when in office, that inspectors could take contraots for two years ; but if he did so it was as a question from Mr Bailey's letter. His Honor reserved judgment. The court rose at 6.10 p.m.