The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prevalebit. SATURDAY, JANUARY 26, 1883 The Christchurch Slander Case.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 853, 27 January 1883, Page 2

The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prevalebit. SATURDAY, JANUARY 26, 1883 The Christchurch Slander Case.

It was not to be expected that the case Paxton v. Stead, which occupied

Ithe attention of the Supreme Court at Christchurch during the early part of the week, would be allowed to pass without comment. Not only have the local papers written about it, but numerous correspondents have given their views upon the question. About the immediate cause of action, the slander alleged to have been uttered by Mr Stead concerning Mr Paxton, nothing need be said. The jury have declared that the latter’s character was injured by what had been spoken about him to the extent of and the matter may be allowed to rest there. But the evidence disclosed certain facts that previously were probably not

understood by the great majority of the people, and it is this that renders the case interesting to a far wider circle than is formed by those who care whether the slander uttered by Mr Stead was justifiable or not. It appears from the reports that Mr Roberts arranged to load a vessel provided by Messrs Royse, Stead and Co. with wheat, placing no reserve upon it, but electing to take his chance in the European markets. Subsequently Mr Stead informed Mi Roberts that he had sold the wheat at 43s 6d, and the latter being satisfied he gave a cheque for that amount, less commission. Afterwards the wheat is disposed of at 455, and thus the middleman not only makes the commission, but also the extra profit accruing from the increased price. This is the story as told from Mr Roberts’s point of view, but it is only fair that the other side should give their account of the transaction ; and it must be admitted that the complexion of the case is considerably altered by looking at it from

another aspect. Mr Stead states that the first sale, namely, at 4;s fid, fell through, and consequently he grain fell upon his hands. As he lad taken the risk, he considered that he was entitled to any profit that migh result from a rise in the market. Ths argument is supported by what must ihvays be a strong factor in mercantile tffairs, the custom of the trade. Unfortumtely for Mr Stead, he was not allowei to bring forward evidence at the tria. to show what this custom was, butjuiging from the correspondence we ha/e referred to, he will not want for chanpions to defend his cause. Tin trouble seems to have arisen from s misunderstanding between the princi pals in the transaction. The seller of the grain elected to take all risk as to the rise or fall of the market upon his own shoulders, while the agent considered that by disposing of the wheat at 43s fid he became himself responsible for the amount the cargo realised at that price. Were this otherwise, it is evident that Mr Stead would, when the first sale fell through, have informed Mr Roberts of the fact and have thrown the cargo back upon the latter’s hands. There is no reason to doubt the bona fides of Mr Stead, and that in following the course he did he only observed the rules of the trade, but it seems to us that an unscrupulous agent could take advantage of “ custom ” to enrich himself at the expense of the farmer or the grain seller. How this could be done is too obvious to need pointing out, and the sooner the position of the middle-man is clearly defined the better it will be for everyone concerned. For this reason it is well that the question has been brought before the public, and we have no doubt that the Chamber of Commerce will take cognisance; of it, and that it will be discussed from all points of view.