SUPREME COURT.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 4997, 3 May 1889, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SESSION.

TIMAEU —TutmsDAT, Mat 2,

(Before His Honour Mr Justice Dcnniston, and a special jury)

Isaac Sargoant v. George Jameson (both of Ashburton) claim £I2OO for value, and £2oo;damages, for wrongful conversion of a parcel of 1208 sacks of wheat. Mr Wilding, and Mr Hay for plaintiff ; Mr G. Harper and Mr Purnell, for defendant.

The following took their seats as the special jury:—Messrs G.' Laing-Meason (foreman), B, D. Hibbard, P. Wareing, F. Pranks, D, Martin, T. Talbot, W. Priest, A. Mee, Q. Buchanan, A. 0. Pringle, R, Stansell, and L. T. Eaynor.

The main facts of the ease as disclosed were that in March, 1883, plaintiff, a farmer at Ashburton Forks, delivered to defendant, a commission agent in Ashburton, for storage 1208 sacks of wheat. Towards the end of November, there having been one or more inconclusive conversations on the subject between them, defendant asked plaintiff if he (defendant) should sell the wheat with his own, to make up a good line, and plaintiff agreed, nothing being said about price, llae following business day plaintiff revoked that authority as ho lad forgotten when he gave it that ho had previously promised the refusal of the wheat to Friedlander Bros. This was plaintiff’s statement. Defendant denied that the authority was revoked in any way. Plaintiff sold the wheat to Friedlander Bros, for 4s Gd, f.0.b., a few days later, but when be gave then authority to receive it, defendant refused to deliver, as he had under the authority to himself previously sold it, to W. P. Cowlishaw, with bis own wheat, at 4s. Ihe case rested upon the degree of reliableness to bo attributed to the principals, who told entirely conflicting stories as to the revocation of the agency. His Honour, in summing up, pointed out that Iho giving of the authority in the first, place was admitted, and if the plaintiff’s story was true,’ bo bad revoked it as specifically as he bad given it. One or other party must be inventing—or, to put it less strongly, must have drawn upon bis imagination largely- it could not be put so simply aa to say that one or other waa mistaken. Either Jameson had'ignored the revocation in order to get the commission on the sale, or Sargent sought to upset a proper transaction in order to get a little extra price. Which story to believe the jury must judge by the demeanour of the witnesses in the box and from the surrounding circumstances. There was no question that the sale effected by Jameson was a fair sale at the time, that he sold at the current market price. Indeed he sold his own’whoat at the same time. As to the measure of damages these would bo, if the jury found for the plaintiff, (1) the difference between the Ashburton prices on the two dates, representing 4s and 4s 6d f o.b. respectively, (2) interest on the value from the 26th November, and (3) a sum of £2l 9s paid by plaintiff to Friedlander Bros, as compensation for loss of commission. His Honour asked the jury, if they found for the plaintiff on the general issue, that ho did revoke the agent’s authority, to specially find on the third item, as an indication whether they thought the alleged sale to Friedlander Bros, was or was not a lona fide one. The witnesses examined for the plaintiff were the plaintiff, Messrs McOwen, banker, H. Friedlander, D. Thomas, and J. Quane, merchants of Ashburton, and the person who threshed the wheat, and on the other side the defendant only was examined; The jury retired at 6 p.m. and returned in about a quarter of an hour with a verdict for defendant.

(By Telegraph. )

NEW PLYMOUTH, May 2,

Mr Justice Gillies lias obtained permission to retain for a time the deed in dispute and other exhibits bearing Martin Petrie’s signature, for the purpose of getting them photographed for scientific investigation, as he said ho had talion a great interest in the ease from a scientific point of view.

BLENHEIM, Mat 2,

The Supreme Court sittings closed to-day. In Banco, this morning, Mr Justice Bichmond disagreed with a remark that Resident Magistrates could not consider a question of title to land. Counsel observed that Magistrates never did, but the Judge held that they had a perfect (o do so.

WELLINGTON. May 2,

Two bankrupts, one a woman, have had their discharges suspended by the Chief Justice, for two months, for not keeping proper books.