DUNEDIN S.M. COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2935, 15 June 1910, Page 17

DUNEDIN S.M. COURT.

Tuesday, June 7. (Before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M.) Judgment was given for the plantiffs by default in the following cases: —Johnstone, Sons, and Go. v. David G. Bell (Christchurch), claim £1 4s 6d, goods (5s costs); Geo. Sickles v. Alfred Morris, claim £1 ss, work and Labour (6s costs),' Howden and Moncrieff v. Chas. Falconer (Kelso), olaim 10s 6d, balance due on goods supplied (9s costs); same v. Elizabeth 0. Mahoney, claim 12s Bd, balance due for goods supplied (5s costs); Annie Murdoch v. Peter Hume (Nelson), claim Bs, costs on action to recover amount due for board and lodging; Geo. Harry Smith v. David Hood, claim £1 8s lid, goods supplied (5s costs); Commercial Agency Company v. Wm. R. Patrick (Christchurch), claim £l2 2s lOd, goods supplied (£1 11s 6d costs); same v. George Perkins (Christchurch), olaim £6 10s sd, geode supplied (£1 3s 6d costs); Thomson, Cleghorn and Co. v. Paul Wareham (Auckland), claim £1 10s, subscriptions due (6s costs); same v. L. W. Wilson (Foxton), claim £3, subscription due (12s costs); D. Benjamin and Co. v. Reginald Wilkinson (Gisborne), claim £3B 14s lid, goods (£1 3s costs); Ahlfeld Bros, and Co. v Cowell Bros. (Gisborne), claim £8 2s 4d, goods (£1 3s 6d costs). Breaches of Carters’ Award.—Joseph Hollows (inspector of awards) proceeded against Edward M'Kewen, road contractor, on a charge of employing Walter Pauley between 6 and 9 a.m. on April 9 and 23 without paying him overtime.—lt was admitted that M'Kewen had subsequently paid the overtime money.—A nominal fine of 10s was imposed. The inspector also proceeded against Walter Pauley for working overtime, on the dates named without demanding overtime.—ln this case a fine of Is. was imposed. " , The Potato Cia.se, —The case of Waters, Ritchie and Co. (Mr A. S. Adams) v. Skelton and Jones (Mr Hay), in which it was sought to recover £lO Is 9d, the value of 23 sacks of potatoes shipped by plaintiffs to defendants at Westport, the same having reached their destination in an almost worthless condition. 90 per cent, of the tubers being rotten, was continued. — No further evidence was taken.—Mr Hay, addressing the court for defendants, contended that the potatoes were not shipped in good order in Dunedin, and that they should have been picked over before shipment. The direct inference to be drawn from the evidence was that Irish blight was latent in the potatoes at the time of shipment. The evidence of Mr Cockayne was, lie continued, theoretical only. The bulletin issued by the Agricultural Department stated clearly that Irish blight gave off a putrid smell, and that smell was distinctly noticed in the consignment in question. He quoted authorities to show that goods were not merchantable if not despatched in such a condition that they would reach the buyer in such a state as to be fit for food.—At the conclusion of Mr Hay’s address the further hearing of argument was adjourned till the following day at 2.30 p.m. The case of Waters, Ritchie, and Co. v. Skilton and Jones, of Westport, in which plaintiffs sought to recover £lO Is 9d for 23 sacks of potatoes shipped to Westport, was continued before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M., on the sth inst. Mr Alexander S. Adams appeared for plaintiffs and Mr Hay for defendants. Mr Adams addressed the court at some length, and in concluding said his points were brifly these: —The potatoes, when shipped, were good merchantable potatoes, and the examination made of them was a proper examination. They were free from indications of blight, and plaintiffs discharged their duty by shipping the goods in a merchantable condition. Under ordinary transit, and under normal conditions, the goods would have been merchantable when they arrived at their destination, and until there was an opportunity of handling them. The onus was on the other side to show that the warranty claimed had been broken, and the amount of damage which had resulted from the breach of warranty. The unusual extension of the voyage had rendered it impossible for the court to apply that clear evidence of extension of warranty claimed by the other side. The unusual extent of the voyage was sufficient to displace any inference as to breach of warranty. There was no evidence whatever of any disease in the potatoes. The fact that the potatoes had germs which might germinate and produce a diseased condition did not render the potatoes unmerchantable. Mr Cockayne’s evidence practically negatived the assumption that the disease was blight, and whether it did or not, it reduced the case to one of doubt, so that the court could not say there was any disease. The whole cans*} of the deterioration of the potatoes was the lengthened transit operating upon them, and th& shipping in November, when potatoes Were necessarily more liable to attack than at an earlier period of the year. His Worship, in giving judgment for plaintiffs, reviewed the evideo? a that had

been given,, and said it seemed to hits that the crux of the whole case was this i Was he driven to the irresistible conclusion on the evidence that the potatoes were so diseased as to develop rottenness during the ordinary course of transit? Ha was of the opinion that plaintiffs shipped good potatoes. He was also of opinion that the examination that was made waaf a satisfactory examination, and that plaintiffs did ship potatoes of merchantable quality. He was r.ot disposed to -accept die evidence that had been taken on ttw Coast in exactly the same light as th» witnesses wished the court to. They expected the court to believe that tbes-a potatoes were in a very advanced stage oJ rottenness, but some of them were, nevertheless, sold for pig food, and he was not disposed to think that they were quite so rotten as defendants would like the court to believe. He could not hold that it was proved that these potatoes were subject to Irish blight, and there was nothing to lead him to believe they were subject- to any disease at all. It was not-proved that the potatoes were in such a diseased condition during the time of shipment, nor during the six or eight days of transit. Ho was bound to hold in favour of the plain- - tiffs, and give judgment accordingly. 'JJ'hf case seemed to have assumed an impor tance which he did not really see it deserved. _ Judgment was, therefore', given for plaintiffs, with costs (£8 8s).