A CATTLE DEAL.

Waipa Post, Volume XXI, Issue 1280, 12 August 1922, Page 8

A CATTLE DEAL.

STOCK AGENTS AND FARMERS.

SUPREME COURT CASE,

The question as to the responsibility attaching ;in case of loss due to a re-sale of bullocks came up for hear : ing in the Supreme Court at Wanganui in February. It was subsequently re-heard before Mr Justice Chapman on 20th and 30th May in the Wellington Supreme Court, when motion for a new trial was made, for the defendants (Dalgety and Co., Ltd., and John Henry Powell) and opposed by the plaintiff (William Alexander D’Arcy, a farmer, of Wangaehu). Plaintiff in the action sued the company for an .alleged loss on 'the re-sale of 97 bullocks: Powell, a butcher, of Charleston, being the actual purchaser. In the course of the first.trial the action against him was discontinued. Dalgety and Co., engaged by plaintiff to sell his cattle, had sold to Powell at £l7 10s per,head, the shipping of the bullocks by Powell, or by Dalgety, having allegedly been arranged for through Co'ck and Co., and plaintiff, allegedly at defendant’s request, employing a drover' to take the bullocks to the wharf at Wanganui.

Eventually, Powell failed to pay the purchase money, the company cancelled the shipping arrangements, and the cattle were returned to plaintiff. The bullocks were then re?sold by him at a loss of £556 10s, and he was also, he claimed, put to the expense of grazing them from 18th August to 31st Ocber, 1921. The grazing claim amounted to £242 10s, the cost of droving £3, and there was an additional claim for his loss and for £IOO general (damages. In his review of the evidence His Honour Mr Justice Chapman held that plaintiff undoubtedly had a grievance against the company, but his mani ground for claimnig judgment lay in the existence of general usage, among stock agents and farmers, that he was entitled to look to the company for payment, irrespective of the question of delivery of the stock. His Honuor held that the evidence as to usage merely described the vendor’s course of business, which for years had worked without a hitch. His Honour said his proper course was to order a non-suit; and, taking what he considered a proper interpretation of the evidence, he was obliged to hold that plaintiff had not made out his case on any of the grounds relied upon.