A SHIPMENT OF BEEF.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LII, Issue 17058, 12 June 1926, Page 8

A SHIPMENT OF BEEF.

MISREPRESENTATION ALLEGED.

CLAIM BY A DEALER

The hearing' of the claim in wlviel Otto Hanson, stock dealer of Kni taratahi sued tho Poverty Bay Farmer; Meat Co. for the sum of £154 damage: alleged to have been sustained through misrepresentation by the company', wa; continued before Mr. K. 0. Levvey 8.A1., in the Gisborne Magistrate’* Court this morning.

When tho ease was resumed .James Dougall Maddisoii, stock, agent at Waipaoa works, was called by Mr. Whitehead to give evidence regarding Iho stock received into the works. H< said Mr. Hanson was a good client for the works, and put a hit of stock lit rough. On a number of occasions his stock was -turned away, and then brought back to keep the works going. The witness said lie had nothing to do with, the shipping ot stock.

Julian Hansen, son of the plaint iff stated that after the stock had beei killed he went and saw the manager who told him lie had received a telegram from Mr. Lysnar insl meting him ro cancel all advances.

Arthur Temple Spain, manager fm the Loan and Mercantile Co., stated that in 19-1. 22 his company was agon! for Mr. Hansen. The cattle referred to were paid for by iTto company, hut lie was not notified of the shipment by the Westmeath to Manchester, until tin bills of lading were presented to him tie refused to lift the hills ns the Manchester market, was unknown, and it was preferred that meat should be shipped to London. The Poverty Bay Farmers’ Meat Co. bail been do finitely instructed not to ship any of Hie meat, with which witness’s com puny was concerned-, in any port Imt London.

To Mr. Chris]) the witness said, that no instructions had been given by his firm regarding the shipment of the meat. If Mr. Hansen had given instructions .for the meat to be shipped lie would expect it to go 1o London. .Mr. Hanson had paid about £(500 for the cattle, and owed the Loan and Mercantile other money, giving as security a second mortgage over land ■at Kaitaratahi, valued at £ISOO in £I7OO. The first mortgage was for, £I3OO, so that his company’s security was not very good. The prices of beef were receding and the outlook was not good. If Air. Hansen had received his advance from the freezing works it would have been handed to witness’s company to reduce his debt, and even then the debt would not be liquidated. If the freezing company had made an advance, the charges and freight would "have been deducted. Witness had declined to accept the bills of lading because the in eat was going to Manchester. Mr. Oh lisp; I suggest that owing to the slump yarn would nbt have taken them up under any circumstances.’ Possibly not. To Mr. Whitehead, the witness said the prices assessed by, the plaintiff in his claim seemed to him to he, reasonable.

The only witness called for the defence was' Harry Percy Smallbone, manager of the Gisborne branch ot tlu; National Bank. He said he was well aware of the advances made by the company, and knew that no advances were made except on meat shipped by the Admiral Codrington. To Mr. Whitehead, witness said that if the company made advances "on other shipments he thought he would know about it. Witness did not. know what happened between Hie company and the plaint ill'. This'concluded the evidence, arid judgment was adjourned for written argument to be submitted.

CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM. ECHO -OF T,B. FARMERS’ MEAT CO.Tho attention oi' the (1 i shorn o Magistrate’s .Court was occupied yesterday in hearing a somewhat complicated claim arising out of dealings with Ihc Poverty Hay Farmers ’ Meat Co. The company claimed from Otto Hansen the sum of £lO2 Os Id, the amount of deficiency incurred together with interest to Juno JO, 1924, upon meat shipped! by the plaintiff company on behalf' of the defendant.

In a lengthy counter-claim defendant alleged l hat the company lmd held the beef in cold storage for 11 months and had then, without permission of the defendant, shipped and marketed the beef at a loss to him. It was alleged that ilia company, by re-present-ng to the defendant that it would make certain advances and then repudiating flic same, acted in a reckless and negligent manner. The defendant;. therefore, counter-claimed £l.">4 as damages. Mr. U. IF Oh risp" appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr. Whitehead tor the defendant.

Mr. Whitehead said that he had an objection .to .the claim in that it was bevond the jurisdiction of the Court, lining oyer £2OO. Although the company was suing for £lO2 balance, its account was really for more than £2OO, being actually £’!;!!. The plaintiff had set off certain amounts, but they wore not prepared to admit that Phe.se were correct. The Court .would have to •traverse the claim for £SISI and it •would be ‘beyond its jurisdiction in doing so. Mr. -Ohrisp submitted that nil that had to concern the Court, was the actual amount of the present claim. As Hansen’s agent, the company bad received certain .money, and had notified him of the fact, and lie had accepted the position. The defence was really an attempt to block the proceedings, and was frivolous.

The Magistrate: If I am not satisfied that I have jurisdiction, it would lie ridiculous for me to go on. Mr. Clirisp submitted that the defendant- had taken advantage of the money which had been credited to him. Ibe defence was frivolous because if they •had to go to Hie Supreme Count they could still only claim for £132. Mr. 'Whitehead said that the proceedings were started over two years ago. but bad been adjourned because tlm •plaintiffs could not get .their witnesses ‘together. The pos&ion which the plaintiffs were now taking up was absurd. The whole essence of the counter-claim was that the company had exceeded its authority.

Tire Magistrate said that the base of defendant’s objection was that the claim was for over £3OO, and that it wan the credit Hud- brought the amount down to £132. Counsel contended that, the setoff was not admitted, and that the matter was beyond -the jurisdiction of the Court.. There seemed to he no opt ion bnt to say -.that the jnatter was beyond his jurisdiction. If seemed a pity, because it could lie more speedily settled in the Magistrate’s Count, but-he. bad to take the views laid down in the authorities.Mr. Whitehead : T aprily for costs, your Worship. The Magistrate: I cannot grant costs, Mr. Whitehead, if I cannot hear the ease. THE COUNTERCLAIM. Mr Whitehead intimated that lie would prefer to have the eonrtterclaim adjourned. Mr Chrisp applied for costs on the counterclaim. They had witnesses present from some distance and were prepared to go on with the case. Mr Whitehead then stated that lie was prepared to go ahead with the counteralnini. 'Explaining the case, Mr Whitehead said that the claim for £154 was based on -misrepresentation and breach of contract. The plaintiff (Hansen) contended that definite representations bad been made to him, but had not been carried out. They said that the company, through shipping the meat to Manchester, lmd committed a breach of contract as the plaintiff had expressly stated they were not to do that. He was induced by representation train tlie Freezing Company to- do something with his stock that Ire had not intended‘to do and thereby lie bad suffered loss.

Otto Hansen, plaintiff in the counterclaim, a dealer residing at Kaitaratalii, stated that in November, 1920, he had 64 fat bullocks and intended putting them into the works. He could not find when they were going to kill cattle so sold his bullocks at Matnvhero, getting £l6 -10 s a head. He later purcHaned some .more cattle and intended putting them into the works, but owing to the slump in prices, decided tq sell them during the following winter. Witness, in •fact, was taking -them up -to -Otoko •when 'Mf W. ©. bysnar met. him and told him lie had (better take ’them back to the freezing works as they were killing hoof the next day. Witness replied that he -was not. going to hold them any , lopger. ADVANCES PROMISED. In March, 1921, lie was in hospital, .and Mr 'Williams, who was out at the works, came to him and told him the company were minting advances to their clients for boctf. He decided to put the cattle .into the works and the advances were arranged. He then notified his agents, the N..-Z. ibonn and .Mercantile Go,, of the position. He later sent his son to inquire about the advances, hut the manager stated that he had a telegram .from Mr Lysriar (o cancel all ntl,vances unless the meat was being shipped by the Admiral Godviivgton. ‘Witness had also gone to the manager. Later, witness was.notified that his-moat' had'been shipped to Manchester, and he had said lie had given no authority for shipping. At the time the .cattle were killed he could have got £5 a head Lathe bullocks and £3 a head for Hie cows. Under no consideration would lie have allowed his beef to lie shipped to Manchester if he. had been -consulted. The fuel, that he was not paid out any advances affected him considerably in his business. CROSS-EXAMINATION. In answer to questions -from Mr. Clump. witness said that he had given the company authority to ship his .meat, hut not to ship tn Manchester. Ho did not think that Mr. Williams had said that the advances were only for meat ito lie Shipped by the Admiral Cod ringtail-, but lie might have done so. ■Witness: Thousands of pounds wore advanced on moat that, was not shipped Ivy Hie Admiral Codrington, bill no advance was paid out on mine. Mr. Clirisp: Can you prove that? Witness: Yes. I can. Mr. 'bysnar .'admitted it ai mir annual meeting and I was l here. Further questioned, witness said that he .bad never before shipped meat to England, All lfTs moat went through the N.Z. Loan and Mcncantilc Co. The advance he would have received was £3OO, and he was not to pay his killing charges until the meat was finally sold. That was the impression Mr. McClelland, the manager of the works, had given

turn. ne thought tnaf cue .\,Z. Loan and Mercantile Co. would pay his freight j without consulting him, because they were his agents." He had made no direct complaint to the directors about the non-payment of bis advance. Mr. Clirisp asked permission to call a witness prior to .adjourning the case till the next day. CONDITION OF ADVANCES. Hugh Buchanan Williams, formerly in the employ of the P.B. Farmers' Meat Co., said that while Mr. Hansen had been in hospital he had gone to te.l Dim there was an advance to be paid on | all meat shipped on the Admiral C-od-rington. Cross-examined by Mr. Whitehead, witness sgid that it had hern definitely stated to him that the advance ot 3d a lb was only for meat that was to be shipped on the Codrington. He had seen Mr. Hansen that morning, hut had not. said that he had not mentioned the Admiral Codringtnn when lie- saw inm at the hospital. To tlm Magistrate witness said that he had been told that lie was to offer special inducement for the shipping of meat bv the Codrington. William Douglas Lysnnr. chairman of directors of tiie Poverty Bay Fanners’ Meat Co., said he was conversant with the basis of the advances, which were to ho made only on meat that was shipped on the Codrington. As a company tliev neither bought nor advanced, ■hut as the slump was on it was difficult to find meat To till the boat. Shipping and freezing charges would, of*, course, coinc out of tlio advance.

Cross-examined by Mr. Whitehead witness said there had been some feeling behind the ease, hut it was only on Mr. Hansen’s part. The advances were made -for moat for the 'Codrington. and as soon as the ship was full the advances were stopped, a notice on bis solicitors, asking them to a notice on. his solcitors. asking them to produce the telegram, nor did lie know that; the telegram had been lost. He bad sent a telegram setting out the position clearly, so that there would bo no mistakes made.

Mr. Whitehead: Mr. Hansen remembers that the telegram said advances were to be stopped except, for meat .on the Codrington. Further questioned, witness said thatthe arrangement had been made with the hank for the advances, and it was the bank that made tin* stipulation regardinjv shipping on the -Codrington. He had some recollection that advances had been made to some clients who bad not shipped on the Codrington. That was done through a mistake-. The arrangement regarding the meat was that unless farmers gave insinuations -t® the contrary. ,al! meat was shipped to Manchester.

At this stage the Court was adjourned until Saturday morning.