A WHEAT TRANSACTION.

Otago Witness, Issue 2604, 10 February 1904, Page 17

A WHEAT TRANSACTION.

THE CA.SE OP SNOW v. JOHNSTON.

Mr E. H. Carew, S.M., delivered judgment at the Magistiate's Court lii Fuday in t'.;e ca^e of "William Snow (Mr Gallaway) v. Allan Johnston (Mr Hay), a claim for £20 12s 0d on a cheque on which payment was stopped. His Worship said : " There is a conflict of evidence but Mr Snow's account of the transaction is the more probable one. The question is whether it has been shown that there was no consideration tor the cheque now sued. upon. At the time when the wheat was sold by Munro to Snow it was held under lien by the Commercial Property and Finance Company. Munro was not authorised by the company to sell it, and Snow offered to give up possession. There was no debt by Snow to the Finance Company, but a debt was due by Johnston to the company. Johnston told Snow that the company were pressing him for money, and if Snow would keep the wheat and send a cheque ior the amount he would give Snow a cheque for £20 to the credit of Munro's account. It is not necessary to consider whether Johnston had authority from the Finance Company to bind them with regard to the wheat. Johnston's proposal was agreed to by Snow, who was to send his cheque to Mr Gallaway to be handed to the company. Johnston then gave Snow the cheque fc«r £20. which was dishonoured, aotid is now sued for Snow sent his cheque for what he estimated to be the price of the wheat — £56 odd — to Messrs Call'&n and Gallaway, who passed it on to the Finance Company, who accepted and gave a receipt for it. The company never made any claim a-gainst Snow for the price of the wheat, but claimed the ownership, and warned him against parting with the possession of it or the proceeds if it had been soid. Had there been a debt due by Snow 1o the company I wou'd have agreed with Mr Hay that there was no consideration for Johnston's cheaue; but there was no such debt, and the consideration was that Snow was to keep the wheat and send the mice to the Finance Company, and that was done. Judgment for plaintiff for JE2O 11s 9d ; costs of court, 30s ; professional costs, 525." Defendant was nonsuited on a counter claim phindoncd during the heaung on Wednesday, with costs (425) to plaintiff. Mr Hay indicated his intention to appeal.