RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Colonist, Volume XXXVI, Issue 7698, 2 August 1893, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

IESIEEDAY.J j [Before H. E*be-Kenot, Esq., B.M.] Nelson Farmers' Co-operative Company versus J. Maitland Jones and Co -8 claim for £12 13 a sd, being the price of a bale of hops. Mr Pitt appeared for plaintiffs. Mr James Blair, the Secretary of the Association, proved the debt. Judgment for amount claimed, with £2 2s coats. ; Amelia Eyles versos John Sharp, junior— a claim for barley sold to defendant— so sacks a) £41 14 ald and 25a for saoka, and 49 saoks a* £39 lls with 24a. 6d for sacks ; total claim for £83 14a 7d. Mr Pitt appeared foe the plaintiff, and Mr Fell for defendant. A lot of evidence was taken, bat owing to pressure » on oar space, we are only enabled to give the main points of the case. ... Henry Edwards, of Messrs Solandera & Go, .testified that 96 aacka of barley were submitted to their firm by plaintiff for purchase,, Jrat alter it had been sampled bom tbe bulk by their storeman, his firm did not bay it.. Mr Giblin took samples of tbe barley, and afterwards sold the lot to defendant, to whom it was delivered. The barley was not worth. 3/7 d per bushel, bat might be saleable at 3/3, their firm might have purchased it at that figure. , William Giblin stated he sold the barley to defendant, who, after looking at two samples agreed to give 3/6 and 3/7 for it. He made no representations to defendant, and only showed the samples. Defendant afters wards told him that the barley was not according to sample, and' its sale had been iefased. Was present at interviews between! Bobert Eylei (plaintiff's son) and. defendant: Eyles was willing to take 3/4, but afterwards defendant laid he could not get more than, $/9d, which Eyles declined. It was eventually agreed that a few saoks of the fifty Bent Booth ihoold be pot op to auction at Dunedin to see what thejbarley woald ietoh, bat that was, not done. The sale to defendant was ; never cancelled, and he tried after to sell it on defendant's acaount. At last interview ",: jbetween the .parties, it was , understood that defendant waß to get the.best offer. he could, jaqd Bubmitjame to Eylea. , He ; could ' prove the.ba'rjey ias ,fit Jor malting, and he never admitted to anyone it .was not .according to samples (produced) shown defendan)[. i ' ftojbert, Edward Eyles gave similar. evidence to Giblin. He never released defendant, and understood the barley was to be auctioned on .;Ca^in(||nt'sj|'9aQnnt.. V - '-. • . - $ 1 ' , John. Saapn, Herbert Satton, William ' „Mob|e, arid TjfomaViSjitton stated that thjey ' "saw plaintiff's bailey threshed. It was dark j in color, bat was a, good body barley, and :,.mMMstto 3]6jq 3/7 d. . ; ~ ,'.'.'.. ','■ Jsinwil Sherwood, storeman, said he took ■implei i from a dozen or .more of the sack?, ' l Mr Eiiwards got the ; camp1e5. ,..,.,, , Theplaintiff stated |he sold 21 bushels of . ' her bailey at 3/7'Vo, Mr Mun'z, who wanted it for fe;d. She authbrieed her sen to sell ihe barley, but not to sacrifice it. .It was dark : Jn. color, and 35 eaoks bad smut in them. '." 'The barley had been nearly three months in stack. Its color did not affeot its price. She produced a sample of the barley. This was plaintiff's case. Mr Fell oalled the defendant, wbo admitted the poichase from Giblin, who. said the barley was at the Port,; and denied it had been repudiated. He sent 49 saoka of it to Mr Hogg, who relosed to takfl it, stating that it wii not fit for maltrng. Btgarding the 60 r |Mks sent to Oamara, a letter received stated }hM loi w*jmuity, *nt uafll foe maiMog,

Giblin admitted that the barley was not up to sample. The reason the barley was not pal up to auction was because oJLa ..tetter-he reoeived from plaintiff's solicitors. He fully understood th> sale to him was rescinded, and he never authorised Giblin to sell on Mb account. The barley remained where be had lent it, part in Nelson, and the rest in Oamaro. He did not put anything down in writing because his father and the clerk heard what he said to Eylea at their last interview about selliDg the barley on plain> tiff's aooonnt. He produoed a sample of mediom quality barley, the samples Giblin gave him, and a Sample ol that sent South. He beliered Mr Hogg; junior, was also present when Giblin admitted the barley was not up to sample. ■ , John: Sharp, senior, stated that he had been, a brewer, and had bad some experience in buying barley. He was present at the last interview between the parties concerned in the barley in question, when there was a long conversation as to what was best to be done with the barley. In the offioe the defendant said " I suppose I can sell the whole lot on your account," and either Eyles or Giblin replied, "I suppose so." At the front door, the defendant repeated, " I can sell or auction on your acoount," and Eyles replied "Yes." The olerk eouldhear that. The defendant replied "That is settled, and there is an end of it." It was ft fresh agreement altogether, and defendant was simply to act as agent. There was no demand what-" ever for the first bargain to be oarried out. The bright sample of barley produced is worth one shilling per bushel more than the plain* tiff's, and there would be a difference of 6d per bushel between the best and the worst samples of plaintiff's barley, Giblin admitted the bulk of plaintiff's barley was not up to sample. Plaintiff's barley was not a good sample, and no brewer would look at it. Eobert William Shallcrass, clerk to defendant, heard the conversation on July Bth, and when the parties got to the door, the defendant said — " Well, it is understood that lam to sell the barley on your account down there." Eyles nodding his head, said " Yes." He was positive the worda " on your account " were used. John Hogg stated he had been amalster about 45 years. As soon as he saw the barley in question he condemned it as unmarketable. It was not like sample— it smelt bad, was musty, its color was bad, and it was damp. Giblin said it was not up to the mark, but pressed him to make an offer for it, but he could not. The germ of the barley would grow, but instead of it being converted into sugar, it would go into starch. Beer made from the bright sample of barley produced would keep, and would be of a bright color. Beer made from the dark sample, would soon go sour, and the liquor would be dark. In bis opinion plaintiff' 3 barley would not make good seed, for it would not produce good malting barley. Barley harvested in bad weather, heating in stacks, and being threshed in wet weather, would deteriorate in quality. The counsel addressed the Court. Mr Pitt said all that had been shown was that plaintiff was willing to take a rebate of 3d or 4d per bushel, and Mr Fell contended that the original bargain had clearly been rescinded, and afterwards defendant acted as agent for the plaintiff. His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff, but said he considered defendant was entitled to a reduotion, owing to the inferiority of the barley. He had deducted 6d per bushel, which on 459 bushels made £11 19s 6d. Judgment for plaintiff for £71 15s Id, with £10 9s oost3.