SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 13482, 23 July 1907, Page 7

SUPREME COURT.

MONTEFIORE v. PARKIN AND KINGDON.

The judgment of Mr^ Justice Button in the caseJ. C; Montefiore v. Thomas Parkin, Roy Parkin, and Charles Kingdon, wag, read by the registrar of the Supreme Court this mornirig. In this case plaintiff • claimed from -the defendants damages for breach pi agreement, defendants Tiaving failed*tb take delivery of certain boulder stone. The judge stated that the plaintiff went to considerable expense in getting ready to carry out his part of the contract, but. the defendants, through not commencing the work they h£d contracted tio do for the Hawera Borough Council, lost that, contract, which was given -to another, cohtracivbri The defence set up was that defendants were unable to obtain trucks from .the Railway Department j and so could not take delivery of the stone. This, however, was-evidently anticipated, as such a contingency was provided against. Defendants relied on the words, " as much stone as the contractors will require." The case seemed~-to~ present features which clearly distinguished it from any of those quoted on behalf of the defence. He could not read the words "will require*" as "may choose to require," as the quantity of stone' required was actually estimated— 4ooo cubic yards. He thought he was bound to imply that the . defendants were obliged to suppjy trucks and take delivery of the stone. It was impossible f or>fche plaintiff to deliver the stone until the trucks were supplied. It appeared to him that the measure of damage was the contract price, which he fixed at £660, less the cost of supplying the stone. From the evidence he considered that Is 6d a yard was .a. fair allowance to be made for the total costs of carting and delivering the stone at the trucks, including the rehandling of a certain amount of stone, which it was estimated might fairly be considered necessary to meet contingencies, and this would amount to £330. Threepence per yard would be allowed for the stone which, not being supplied, remained in plaintiff's possession- — 4400 yards at 3d equalled £55. £55 added to £330 totalled £385, which, deducted from £660, left a balance of £275. This amount plaintiff was entitled to recover.

Judgment, therefore, was given for plaintiff for £275, with costs on the middle scale. Five guineas' were allowed for second counsel.

We understand an appeal is to be lodged against this judgment.