SUPREME COURT.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume II, Issue 568, 4 December 1915, Page 12

SUPREME COURT.

THE FLOUR CASE.

VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFFS.

The case of Cook and Mackenzie, bakers, of Clissold Street, St. Albans, I v. Wood Bros., Ltd., flourmillers, of Christchurch, was concluded in the Supreme Court yesterday] afternoon, after three days' hearing. His Honour, Mr Justice Denniston, presided, and a special jury of 12 was empanelled. Mr A. M. Wright appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr M. J. Gresson, with him Mr Neave, for the defendants. The claim was for £332 10/- as damages for loss of business caused] by the supply by the defendants of I defective flour, which resulted in a falling-off of the quality of the plaintiffs' bread. It was alleged that certain flour supplied by Wood Bros, was affected by mucor (white mould), which gave rise to mustiness in the bread. ! Addressing the jury, Mr Gresson said that the real question at issue was whether the flour was at fault, or whether it was the bakehouse that was the cause of the trouble. It was most important for the jury to remember that when the plaintiffs' trouble began on February 15 there was not a morsel of the defendants' flour in the bakehouse. Wood's flour did not go into the loft until March 25. When the trouble began, Moir's flour was in the loft, and Moir and Co. had since paid into Court the sum of £2OO in settlement of a claim such as that which the defendants were now fighting. Moir and Co. and Wood Bros, had originally been joined as co-defendants in the present action, and it might seem curious that one of the co-defendants should settle while the other should decide to fight the case. As a matter of fact, Moir and Co. and Wood Bros, had nothing to do with each other, and did not know what flour each other supplied. What really was shown by the evidence and by the fact that Moir and Co. had settled the claim against them, was that the plaintiffs' loft had become affected by Moir's flour, and that all the flour subsequently put there was contaminated. He strongly repudiated any suggestion that may have been made by Mr Wright that other wheat was mixed with the Australian wheat from which the flour in question was made. Nothing of the kind had been done. Mr Wright also addressed the jury. He said the question at issue was whether the flour was bad when it was delivered to the plaintiffs, or whether it became contaminated in their loft. This theory was disposed of by the fact that, of seven flours in the loft, only two were af- j

fected—the - defendant's and one other.

After the jury had retired for 55 minutes, they returned and said that they could not arrive at a unanimous verdict.

His Honour pointed out' that he could not. accept a three-fourths verdict until the jury had beeii out for three hours.

The jury again retired and returned a few minutes later with the intimation that they' had arrived at a unanimous verdict. They found for the plaintiffs, and awarded £lB2 10/damages. Judgment was entered up accordingly. Costs were allowed on the lowest scale, with two extra days at £5 5/-.

IN DIVORCE.

WALSH v. WALSH.

Frances Elizabeth Walsh (Mr Ivitchingham) sought dissolution of her marriage with Francis Henry Walsh, on the grounds of desertion. The parties were married on the West Coast in 1905. The respondent was addicted to drink, and left his wife six years ago. , A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months.