DISPUTED TIMBER DEAL.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIIC, Issue 14277, 18 August 1910, Page 3

DISPUTED TIMBER DEAL.

-MOSS V. LOACH. JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. At the Courthouse yesterday. Mr V. G. jJtiy, S.M., gave his reserved jude-mo-nu in a -ca.su Henry Frederick Moss (-Mr Jerry) v. -Joseph Loach (Mr Tripp) jis follows:—"The plaintiff was a timber merchant at Dunedin. and defendant :\. skin-dealer. Plaintiff chimed to l-L'.-ovoi' Jruni defendant £2o Is od the value of two truck loads of timber On -March 2nd fOtO, the defendant »av,. the plaintiff's traveller at Tem"ka a verbal order for about 12 DUfVt of builuing timber. The defendant was iully aware of the prices to be c.haro-ed lor such timber, the prices epioted being "free on railway trucks'" at Pivertoii. the defendant was to pav the' railway charges. Tlie order was forwarded by the plaintiff's traveller to the plaintiff at Dunedin. On March i ;T tlef endant changed his mind about the timber, and several letters passed between the parties. The defence sot up two grounds: (1) That the order or the timber had been cancelled by the letter of tha defendant of ,Miirc-h 4th and agreed to hv the plaintiff by his letter to tlie defendant of the ,th March; (2) that as the contract was lor toe sale of goods of value in. excess of £l.O, the contract was not enforceable, inasmuch as the provisions ot" section 6 of "The Sale of Goods Act 1908,-' had not been complied with In' regard to the first ground Mr Dav said that with some doubt lie find come to the conclusion that the letter of the dofondant of March 4th, and the reply of the plaintiff of March. 7th. only operated as a cancellation of the contract as it then stood. The evidence clearly showed thai the two trucks had heen loaded nnor.-.Mi,:. nf the plained s letter „- .»' • '■ . . i, ~„,,.,„, tf) the second grounds of ileiciite Mr Day

held that section 34 of -'The Sale oi Goods Act. IW)S,'" made the delivery of goods to a carrier •'prima facie" a delivery of good.s to the buyer. In this case the contract was to deliver tin' timber free on the raihvav trucks at Kiverion. The defendant had failed to rebut the presumption thai the delivery to the carrier was a deliverv to himself. Following the ruling "laid down in the ease of "Kibble v. Goush" 38 L.T., '2(14, 204 C.A.. His Worship held that there had been delivery to. acceptance and receipt by the defendant of the two truck loads of timber. Judgment would be for the plaintiff for ±2") Is od, the amount claimed with costs of Court £l. !;«, and costs of taking evidence at Dunedin £'3 4s (Jd. and solicitor's foes £2 12s.