RESIDENT MGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuapeka Times, Volume XXIV, Issue 1903, 8 June 1892, Page 3

RESIDENT MGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, 6th June. (Before W. H. Bevell, Esq., E.M.)

John Stewart v. J. C. Arbuckle.— Action for damages for defective storage of wheat, Mr Finlayson for plaintiff ; Mr Orooke for defendant. The claim was for £6 13s, being the amount of loss alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff on the sale of 70 bags of wheat at the rate of 6d per bushel owing to defective storage in defendant's store. The case for the plaintiff was that he had stored some 800 bags of wheat in defendant's store from June, 1889, to June, 1890 ; that en the wheat being removed from the store it was found to have been damaged from damp, and that 70 bags of it realised 6d a bushel less than it would otherwise have done.

The evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses was taken on May 30, and it was attempted to be shown, that the wheat was in first-cla&s condition when taken to the store ; that it was there improperly stacked by the defendant's storetnan, the outside bags loaning against tbe wall of tbe store j and that wheat being very sensitive to damp, it drew the damp from the wall, and so was damaged. After the plaintiff's evidence had been taken, the case was adjourned, on the application of defendant, to last Monday, when the case came on again for hearing.

Mr Crooke, for defendant, reviewed the evidence for the plaintiff at length,and pointed out to the Court that the plaintiff's case rested on a series of assumptions. The theory was that the wheat h<id been so stacked that the stack leaned against the wall of the store, which was of stone, the floor being concrete ; that the wall was damp ; and that the wheat being sensitive ' o damp drew the damp from the wall. But these were mere assumptions for the purpose of accounting for the damage done to the wheat ; for there was no evidence either that any of the bags did, in fact, touch the wall, or that the wall was damp. As the wheat had been stacked for some time on the land before being threshed, it might have contracted damp then. In any case, the onus was upon the plantiff to show somenegligenoe on the part of the defendant, which he had failed to do. Moreover, the plantiff had waited two years before making any demand.

For the defence, Hugh Craig said he had stored grain in the defendant's store for years, and had never found it suffer any damage. He considered there was not a better store in New Zealand,

William Arbuckle stated that he had stacked the wheat; the bags were stacked on a wooden platform, raised from 6 to 8 inches off the floor, and the stack was six inches from the wall. He had not noticed any damp on the wall. He had never had any complaints made before of his stacking. The defendant stated that plaintiff had made no complaint to him when his loss was ascertained, and bad only made a claim on his requesting payment of a small account a few months back. It was a very common thing for grain in this district to become damaged during a storage of twelve months. It was not properly seasoned, an i so would not stand a lengthy storage. He had never had any complaint before of damage suffered by grain stored with him. Grain taken in for storing was never examined, and he had nothing to do with ascertaining the condition of the grain received for storing. Plaintiff's wheat had been stored in the ordinary way. iHe could not account for the damage. ThQ Magistrate found that there waa noth«

ing to show that defendant had not used ordiuary care in storing the wheat, and there was no evidence that it had contracted damp in his store. Judgment would be for deFeadant. with costs (£3 2s).