A DEAL IN SHEEP.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 13602, 6 February 1915, Page 8

A DEAL IN SHEEP.

An alleged breach of contract in l'eflpect of the sale of certain sheep formed the basis of k claim for £60 "which came "before Mr W. A. Barton, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon. In the case hi question Thomas Thomson, stock dealer (Mr T. Alston Coleman), proceeded against Francis Stafford, sheepfarmer (Mr J". Dawson), the statement 01 claim alleging that on December 16, 1914, at Hangaroa, plaintiff and defendant mutually agreed that defendant *hould sell and deliver about 625 sheep to the plaintiff at mutton prices signed for as under, via,, ewes 3|d per lb up! to 441bs, sid per lb between 641bs and 72)bs, and *d per lb over 721bs, and that plaintiff should pay therefor on delivery. Plaintiff was ready and willing to take delivery thereof. Defendant had not delivered, and had refused to deliver the sheep, whereby plaintiff had been deprived of the profits which would have accrued to him.

Plaintiff, in giving evidence, said that t>n December 8 he arranged by ±elephone tUi see defendant's sheen 5 on. December 11 ho arranged with Common, Shelton ».-nd -Co. to supply them with fat -sheep. He saw defendant's sheep at his yards drafted, and bought them, the price being 20s for wethers, 17s 6d for ewes, and 20s for maiden ewes. He culled out 525 and csrae away. On December" 14 ■defendant came to his house, and 'asked ; .i he would do him a favor. He said ;he thought he had sold too cheap, and asked to be let off the deal and to make a fresh one. He asked to be' allotted' tt» p«t the sheep in at schedule prices.He told defendant that the beat- ntices would be wethers 4£d", 4£d and l 4d,' ewes 3£d, 3£d and 3£d, and he agreed', to cancel the first sale and buy ' them* as above, a memo, of sale being produced. On December 16' he saw defendant' at Jeffrey's, and defendant said 1 Nelson Broa.' picker had drafted his sheep, and foo -had had a row with Mr Fenwick over selling his sheep to plaintiff, and said they would not take the balance, about 100. Defendant asked the best price he could g_ive, and he (plaintiff) said he had received a wire intimating that prices were down. Defendant agreed to dell according to the sale note, produced. The first arrangement was to take delivery on the farm, and if defendant drove them he w&V to be allowed £1 per day. He told defendant on December 16 that he 'had no space for a couple of days, but he would get it in about a week; that Mr Cederwall had promised it. He arranged to lot defendant know the date. He : got r the space for the following Monday. ,On the 17th he rang up defendant's, and could not' get him, but a lady answered the wire, and he learned that defendant had left with the s-heep and would be at Ngatapa that nighti He tried to get defendant at Ngatapa, but could not do so. Ho saw defendant's son in town Ktn the 19th, and ho ascertained that •defendant was not going to sell the sheep to him : that ho had changed his mind. He (witness) replied that the saeep were his, and defendant's son said they were going to ship them on their own account. He (plaintiff) consequently saw his solicitor. He subsequently asked defendant the weights of the sheep, and he said they would see about that in Court. He made a claim through his solicitor, ' and estimated -his profit at between £50 and £60. Had he got de-* livery he would probably have shipped them. He estimated the sheep at 571b, and on that could have made a profit of £50 or £60. To Mr Dawson : Ho told defendant he estimated them at 551bs. Defendant did not say he was deceiving hint ; re the prices. Defendant did not say they were all to go. down next day. He -told* -the lady on the- 'phone to tell ; defendant not to move the sheep until'he;-{plain-tiff) rang him up and told hint thVdatW H« delivered a similar message to defendant's house in town. He did not agree to the sheep coming dbWfi until he had arranged space. He had had a deal with Jeffreys and Mills, and in both rases hu stipulated ho would take?- the shoep if; he got the space, but that was not the case \yith the present deal. He denied that the sheep were to be sent to town on the Thursday; they were not to be brought down until- he got the space secured. He tried to get space for tvtem at Nelson Bros., because he might have got them in there earlier. Assuming that the stock had arrived at Patutani and required to be held, Tie could not have obtained the feed.

To Mr Coleman : He had- sought to secure space at Nelson 8r05.,, but they were blocked up, and he had done- all his business through the Sheepfarmers' Company. Joseph* - Burton Kells gave evidence that there was a considerable fluctuation of prices in stock between December 8 and 16. He arranged about December S to take up to 1000 sheep from plaintiff at fixed prices. Oh December 8 prices cLropped one-eighth (after seeing' plaintiff), and again on the 9th. Witness deposed to the prices arranged for with plaintiff, which Mr Coleman said represented a profit of about £60. : To Mr Dawson: In December there was a difficulty in obtaining space unless arranged for at the works previously. Mr Dawson, in opening for the;, defence, said that the contract was^for the sheep to be taken down the following day, and the sheep were sent down, only to find that plaintiff could . not 1 takethem. • Defendant had consequently, to find some means to place the sheep, ?»nd finally, after strenuous efforts, arranged with Mr Fenwick to freeze them on his (defendant's) account. , Counsel moved for. a non-suit on. the ground that there was not sufficient evidence of the contract in writing* He maintained that tie documents were inconsistent, and did not cpntain all the terms of the contract, whilst? .the document dia not contain the name of, tho buyer, and- that the documents coufd, not be connected, and that if they could, be no contract rould bo taken from them. The time for delivery was not mentioned in either of the documents. His Worship commented upon the clumsy manner in which the documents were drawn.

Legal argument was submitted by counsel on the non-suit points, on wh'ich His Worship reserved his decision. Hie case for the defence was proceeded with. "•. .

Francis Stafford, defendant, gave «vidence that on December 16-he 1 saw plaintiff at Jeffrey's, and asked' him the best price going. Plaintiff said there had been a slump, and he (defendant) agreed to sell at the prices mentioned, ttie 'number beincr 130, He not undertake to cell' 625 sheep as stated in the sale note. He had sold to '■plaintiff about 500; sheep on the 14th. He did not resell those same sheep on different terms on the 16th. The condition was that" the sheep were to be taken by the" buyer the following day, and he (defendant) was to drive them. 'The arrangement was most emphatic. Plaintiff said noth* ing about space, but said he would ring him (defendant) up, and say which -works they were to go to. He did" not tell defendant to hold the 1 sheep until he rang up. Tho sheep left next day in charge of his son. On the 18th, in consequence^ of a message from his son at Patutayii. they tried various people, butj were unable to obtain paddockihg, which was essential- Being unsuccessful he evontnally arranged with Mr Fenwick to have the sheep killed and frozen on his own account.

To Mr Coleman : He' agreed in the first instance to sell plaintiff 601, and subserviently 130; There could, be no question as to prices. Hie would have carried out the . first contract, bnfc not' the second, as he considered he was misled on the 16th. Plaintiff told him there was' a slump. Had he not" been misled about the price plaintiff would have got the lot. It was plaintiff's trouble about the space. To Mr Dawson : Assuming there had been no question about the price; there was still the question of delivery, and it was plaintiff who broke the bargain. It was on account of the lambs that the sheep had to leave th'e 1 place.

Ellen Hair, of Patutahi, said that on December 17 the wires were in contact, and she answered the telephone. Plaintiff said he was very anxious^ to prevent defendant bringing sheep down. She asked if it was on account of fires, and plaintiff said no, ' it was because he could not get them into the freezing work*.

Mabel S^aiford, daughter of defendant, stated that she received' a message from

plaintiff, saying lie could not take tho sheep, as he could not get a paddock to put them in. He drove round about an hour later and repeated it. Hazel Stafford, another daughter of defendant, said she received a message? from plaintiff the previous day to say that he wanted to stop the sheep, because he could not get space for them. Morley Stafford, son of defendant, de posed to bringing the sheep from tiic station. On reaching Patutahi he received a message, and in consequence tried to get grazing, but was unsuccess ful. He subsequently took them to Nelson Bros-' works. On the 19th plaintiff rang him up, and told him he had been trying to get the sheep killed, and thought he could a;et them killed on .Monday, morning. He asked where thu sheep were, and said ho would like them over at the Kaiti works on Sunday evening, Witness told him they had been handed over ,to Nelson Bros. Plaintiff did not ask why the sheep were brought down on the 17th. To Mr Coleman : His last instructions on Friday night were that if he could get grazing he was to leave plaintiff's sheep and bring the others on to Nelson Bros.

Counsel briefly reviewed the cas.e, and his Worship reserved judgment, thi? Court rising- at 5.50 p.m.