A SHEEP DEAL.

Tuapeka Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 5969, 14 August 1912, Page 3

A SHEEP DEAL.

'AW IMPORTANT DECISION FOB FAMMHRS.-

A case which umnistakeably illustrates the responsibility of farmers when signing sale notes in connection with the disposal of stock was heard ■before Mr J. JR. Bartholomew; S.M., at Lawrence yesterday.

This was an action brought by MiRichard Botting, butcher and dealer, Dunedin, against Messrs Scott Bros., of Waitahuna Gully, to recover the sum of £lB, the alleged loss sustairjed by him for the failure of the defendants to deliver eghty fat owes, portion of line of 180 boug.n by the plaintiff from the. defer.danls on the 31st May. Mr F. B. Adams (Dunedin) appeared for the plaintiff and Mr 1). Fin layson for the defendants. The facts as adduced in evidence wore as follows :—During the month of May Mr George Scott, one of the defendants, supplied the Milton agent of 'Messrs Wright, Stephenson, and Co. with a list of fat sheep his firm had for Bale. Inoluded in this was a line of 128 fat ewes. The list was sent to Dunedin and a buyer not being then available the defendants were instructed to forward a truck of the owe 3 to Burnside jnarkct. Twenty of the tops wore sent aijd realised 14s 6d. On the 31st of May Wright Stcriienson's Milton talent (Mr McDonald) introduced to Mr J. B. Scott, a partner of the firm, Mr Botting who said he was prepared to buy the fat ewes. Mr J. B. iScott informed the plaintiff that his 'brother George had charge of the sheep ar.d advised Mr Botting and |Mr McDonald to see himi and showed them where he ('George) was to be found on the property several miles away. They did lM seem anxious ;to do tliis, however, and a price was discussed and 13s fid was decided upon. The number of ewes for disposal then arose .and as J. B. Scott was uncertain oi this he reterred to an employee who replied that ho thought there were 200, and' it was agreed that three trucks of fiO sheep each should bo sent at 'weekly intervals. Plaintill and McDonald then went . a nd ex-1 amined the sheep and on retiring to the homestead a 6alo note was signed by J. 1). Scott on behalf of his I firm. Later on the same day when Georgi! Scott was informed) ot" the sale he told his brother that he hurt oversold ; that there were r.ot more than 108 ewes in the flock". Mr J. B. I Scott immediately wrote to McDonaid informing him of his error and their inability to iulfil the contract, and a considerable amount of correspond ence followed between the,parties and Messrs Wright, Stephenson, and Co., but without effecting a settlement.

The (plaintiff gave evidence in sunport of the case as outlined by his solicitor, and said he was satisfied from his inspection of the sheep that there w a s the number stipulated in the sale note in the flock, though he had not counted them. He also gave evidenco as to the rise in the market value of this particular class r>i sheep from the date of purchase to the date when the last truck should hav e been delivered, the 25th June. In crossexamination he denied that Messrs Wright, Stephenson and Co. were his agents or that he had authorised them to write offerinc a settlement on his behalf provide:! that defendants paid the half rail ore on the second truck of 38 forwarded. He admitted, however, that at a later date he had offered, without prejudice, .to settle the matter for £5, though lie considered his less threo times that umount, but received no replv to that letter.

Donald McDonald, agent for Wright. Stephenson, lt 'id Co., at Milton, corroborated the plaintiff's evidence as to what took place at Waitahuna when the deal was made aud admitted in cross-examin.'tion that ho had on the 21st May leoeived from George Scott a list of the fat sheep .which his firm had for sale. This was produced and showed that the number of fat owes given was 128. He never thought of producing this note when the nuestion of number af ewes was mentioned at tho time of the deal.

Evidenco was giuen {or the defence by J. B. Scott, George Scott, ami .lames Wilde. ' The first-nannd said tliat when plaintiff was introduced to him by McDonald a s a buyer he explained to him that his brother George had charge of the sheep and advised thorn to see him. He admit-ted,-however, discussinc the price with plaintiff a nd agreeing to 13s (id per head. He was entirely misled by Wilde's reply that there were about 200 ewes in the mob. Directly he learned of his error he wrote to McDonald at Miltoni informing! him of his mistake, mid informed him that ih-v would not be able to deliver more than a truck and a-half. lie admitted signing the sale note on behalf () f the firm, but under a misapprehension as to the number o! ewes they had for disposal. George Scott's evidence was to the dlßect that lie had given McDonald a list of the tat ewes they had for sole on the 21st Mav and that the number sold prior to the deal with Bolting and the number forwarded to plaintiff (100) tallied with this number. They had, he s-aid, sent every available sheep. He admitted that the .market had hardened after the sale but considered that a similar class of sheep could have been purchased- bv the plaintiff a ft«r receiving! notice a! their inability to supply the full number at considerably less thau 18s <xl per head. He was not, however, prepared to denv that tho price quoted as having been paid'by plaintiff (18s 6d) was incorrect. James Wilde'i evidence was merely -,- corroboration of previous evidence as to what to(.!< place between the parties during the deal. His Worship, in giving nidgmeut, said the issue was a very simple ope. The position -was that thd parties- !w e re b©und by their written contract. No matter what the conversation was the written contract was comolusive. fie was satisfied, however, that the de>fendaat (J. B. Scott) had made a legitimate ar.d 'bona fide mistake but it]! was a mistake in nn wav contributed to by the plaintiff, and that ibeing the case the defendant', must pay for it. The plaintiff was entitled to recover the difference in price between 13s 6d the amount at which he ibpught the defendants' sheep and the current' price at the date when they failed to deliver. Thi< lattei was g-iwon in evidence by plaintiff as 18s fid and as it w a s not disputed judgment w o uld be given for the amount claimed with Court costs £1 ss, witnesses expenses £1 19s. 4d and solicitor's fee £1 6s.