Page 10 Advertisements Column 4

Otago Witness, Issue 2104, 21 June 1894, Page 10

Mrs. So A. Al!en'S World's Hair Restorer. It is not an experiment, but has been in use for over sixty years throughout the civilized world. Restores the Youthfoi Colour. It renews life, strength and beauty, and restores the natural colour to gray hair. GOVERNMENT LIFE INSURANCE . . DEPARTMENT. Policy-holder* and those about to insure should note the three essentials of Life Insurance, SECURITY. LIBERALITY. ECONOMY. IN THE GOVERNMENT OFFICE:— SECURITY is unimpeachable the payment of every polioy is juaranteed by tho State • and, in addition, the accumulated Insurance Fund, invested in the soundest securities, now amounts to nearly two millions sterling. LIBERALITY Is Mtqualled. Policies In arrear are kept alive so long as the charges on tha Polioy are not in excess of tho Surrender value. Policy holders are unrestricted as to travel, residence, and occupation. Claims are promptly paid. Premiums are charged for age neartit birthday: Policies are unchallengeable on any ground except fraud, or suicide within twelve months. f^CONOMY Is Insured by direct Parliamentary JJy supervision. All expenditure outside payment of Claims, &c. has first to receive the sanotton of the Legislature, fUNDS NEAELT TWO MILLION POUNDS, innual incomo crvr £330,000. Cash Surplus in 1890, over £232,000. (LAST DISTRIBUTION). f.H. RICHARDSON. I] CommbaleMT.

COURT OF APPEiL. HINDLEY AND CO. (LONDON AND CALCUTTA) v. TOTHILL, WATSON, AND CO. (INVERCARGILL). This was a case of some considerable commercial interest, involving questions of importance between the vendors and purchasers of goods. It has been referred to ones or twice in our columns, and the facts appear in the judgment. The action was originally set down for trial at the Supreme Court, Invercargill, but, at the suggestion of his Honor Mr Justice 'Williams, it was removed direct to the Court of Appeal, where it was heard on the 4th and 7th May ultimo, before the full court, consisting of his Honor the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Richmond, Mr Justice Williams, Mr Justice Denniston, and Mr Justice Conolly, Mr M. Chapman and Mr F. R. Chapman appearing for the plaintiffs, and Mr T. M. Macdonald and Mr Woodhouse for the defendants. The following is the judgment of the court t — " There was originally a contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants for the sale of 1000 bales cornsacks. The defendants allege, however, that after this contract had been entered into, and before breach, the contract was. varied in such a manner that in effect the original contract was converted into two contracts, one with the defendants for the sale to them of 500 bales, and another with the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Company for the sale to the company of a similar number, and that these two contracts became thus substituted for the original contract. The case therefore is not one where there is an existing debt, and where the question arises, whether by an arrangement between the creditor, the original debtor, and a third person, the creditor has agreed to accept the liability of the third person in lieu of that of the original debtor. In such a case, it is always material to inquire, not only whether there has been an accord, but as to whether the agreement itself amounts to an accord and satisfaction of the original debt. Here any variation of the original contract was before breach, and the suggested variation is of such a kind that not only would the defendants be released from a part of their obligations to the plaintiffs which the original contract imposed, but the plaintiffs would themselves be released from the corresponding part of their obligations to the defendants. As to 500 of the 1000 bales the defendants would not have to pay for them, nor would the plaintiffs have to deliver them to the defendants. The question then simply is, whether the correspondence between the plaintiffs and the defendants, and between the plaintiffs and the company, taken in conjunction with the subsequent acts of the plaintiffs, show that a contract for the sale of 500 bales of cornsacks was entered into between the plaintiffs and the company. If there was such a contract, then as the existence of such a contract is inconsistent with the existenca of a contract to sell the same sacks to the defendants, the original contract so far as these sacks are concerned would be rescinded, and the rights and liabilities under it of the plaintiffs and defendants towards each other would have ceased to exist. The letters of the defendants to the company, and of the company to tho defendants, dated respectively the 17th and 18th October, contain the original arrangement between the company and the defendants, as to the taking half the sacks. These