THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17112, 6 April 1921, Page 5

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT. CIVIL SITTINGS. (Before his Honour Mr Justice Sim.) PELT CONTRACT REPUDIATED. The hearing was resumed of the action in which-A. H. Turnbull and Co. (Mr George Harper, with him Mr M. J. Gresson) sought t-j recover damages, arising out of the part repudiation of a contract to purchase the output of pelts of the North Canterbury Cooperative* Freezing, Export, and Agency Company, Ltd!, Kaiapoi from Bwelß. Beals (Mr M. Myers, Wellington, with him Mi A. F Wright). At the previou* day 3 h "rin| the case for the plaintiffs was concluded, and defeXfs coWel moved for a insult., On to Honour'* suggestion, it was agreed that evidence for the defence should do called. Mr "STSiSi Ormerod, New Zealand S presentative of Messrs Rock and -Sow, J£» brokers, who stated that he had 30 J ears experience of the pelt trade of which 10 £S£W W of the pelt trade m New Zealand Ho had experience of buying and sen £'the output ofV? from feezing works; -the pelts from freezing works ehould be cleaned up and delivered from th ™™*™ to a month after tho close of the killing sea eon. Freezing pelts were «?»-« J f*We wd mfere valuable than butchers' pelts; if freez ?£ pelts were being sold at 50s per dozeni,tutchers' would bring not over 40s per dozer,. On "December 4th, 1920, he inspected eleven casks of pelts (part of the ject of the action); they consisted 0 f mixed freezers' and butchers' pelts It was not a question of an occasional butchers peli, there were numbers of'them. In a conversation at theworks, on the same day, in whicn Beals, Baker, Hopkins, and witness took port, Hopkins admitted that butchers pelts were mixed with the freezers' pelts. Hopkins had said that they were so busy that they could not be. kept separate, and-that, as long as the butchere got the tally of the number of skins sent in, that was as much as he (Hopkins) could do. Witness found a few skins thaVha£ ben dried; also one or two lamb pelta. : • ■ : . , . To Mr Gresson: Freezing pelts :were worfceci to better advantage, in that the animal heat was got out of them immediately they were i taken frorn the animals' backs. He was con--1 fident that there were butchers' pelts in sessi i Of the casks he examined, because of the large percentage which were tender on the grain—a matter that any expert could detect—and there were also evidences of blood and salt stains. On December 2nd, 1920 his firm sold in London 2778 dozen North Island frcezwig pelts at an average price of 61s 13d per dozen ex wharf, London, equal to 62s 7d net f.o.b. New Zealand; at that time North leland were worth 8s more South Island. If the line' the subject, of the action were ae well worked ad the line referred to, it would be worth, something over 40s per dozen. ■'.'.'.'■''' .'. ~ , N. L. Macbeth, general manager in Cnnstchurch of Armour and Co., Australasia, Ltd., stated that all pelts should be pickled and cask'ed within three weeks after the close of th-j killing Beason. Last year, as far as ho recollectd, the killing season'in Canterbury closed about the third week in July.. R. B. Beals, the, defendant, stated that, beior© he left-the .Dominion last May, he did not hear from plaintiffs, or anyone cpnnected with them, that there was any possibility of the estimate of 2500 dozen for the output being exceeded. He had dealt in pelta foj 22 years.' He did not know, until he lieard the evidence given the previous day, that -anyybutchers' pelts had been included in tho first lot delivered by the Kaiapoi Corrfpany. He estimated that the difference in value between butchers' and freezers' pelts was from 20 per cent, to 33 l-3rd per cent He had not received any complaints regarding l butchers' pelts in the shipment comprising l the first lot from the Kaiapoi Company, but, this was due, probably, to the fact that the shipment had not been carefully examined. He examined the same casks that Mr Ormerod examined; witness found numerous pelts with tender grain, which in his opinion wore butchers' pelts. In conversation at the works, Hopkins stated that he had heen unable to keep (jjie butchers' pelts separate from the freezers' pelts, because he had such .o 'rush of work. Three weeks after the end of the killing season was ample time for the pelts to be cleaned up, though it might take a month. - To Mr Gresson: The position he had taken with Mr Gibson was that he (witness) was not getting what he contracted for. At no time did he insist'that he was not gittingi

enough under the contract, The impression got from what Hopkins said about > -marking casks as containing butchers' pelts, was that he chose any cask he liked, and that they were not marked until after the specifi- , nations were amended. Witness did not then . tax Hopkins with fraud, nor was anything l said to the company about it. j- W. M. Tyere, public accountant, produced calculations, based on statements made in ■•evidence, to show that the Kaiapoi Company | was not in a position to supply plaintiffs I with pelts with which to conform with their ! contract with defendant. ; E. J. Worsdale, foreman lellmonger for j Borthwick and Co., stated that at that oomI pany's works the pelts were cleaned up in j about a fortnight after the end of the killing! ; season.

This was the case for the defence. Mr-Myers, addressing his Honour, said that the whole of the evidence in support of the plaintiff's case went to show that there must have been a large number of butchers' pelts in the first delivery to defendant. Tho Kaiapoi Company had begun last season by adopting what, was nothing less .than a fraud,, a deliberate fraud; it was a continuous series of deliberate breaches of regulations made in the public interests. It must be assumed

that the Government wanted these pelts for i some good reason. It was difficult Ao as- I sum© that the chairman, Mr Greenwood, was a party to anything like this. But in order to make a few shillings per dozen pelte for themselves or their shareholders, they flouted the regulations, flouted the Government, and flouted the interests of the public as a whole. That being. eo„ it was not to be supposed, prima facie, that any special precautions were-taken to keep the butchers' pelts separate, from the-freezers; on the contrary, their game would be," as far as they possibly could, to mix all the pelte together; the probabilitywould be that the whole thing would pass unnoticed. What the company was relying! on was (hat pelts were at such a high price, that, there was such a demand for them up to June, that it did not matter, and that, if the butchers' pelts could be "rang in" with the freezers' pelts, no notice would-be taken of them. The Kaiapoi Company, at the time, was working under the. greatest pressure, and so much so, that some '£4ooo was paid in overtime in the fellmongery department. He submitted that the plaintiffs had no* proved their contract or that they were as any time ready ,and willing to pea)'oan. it, because defendant did not, and ' could not by any pelts but freezers' pelts—the Jawwould not permit them. It waa impossible for the company to "ring in" pelts that it ! was illegal for defendant to handle, and then Bay that they had fulfilled their contract. In further emphasised the point that while lib contract between the

companv and plaintiffs provided for instalment deliveries du*ng the season, there was no such provision in the contract between plaintiffs and defendant. In the absence of any referenoe in the contract between the parties to deliver? by instalment it was reasonable to assume that there was to_ be delivery in one lot. Counsel's view was that the North Canterbury Freezing Company would have to bear the! loss, and haying rerard to the attitude they had chosen to adopt he did not suppose that anybody was likely to have much sympathy with them. referring to the evidence of the experts counsel «aid that it was not necessarily in conflict. In view of the company's attitude towards the reflation, counsel would not put it past the companv to have the contents of some of the oaaks re-assorted so that when submitted to the examination of plaintiffs experts last February they were found to contain freezers* pelts; he did not thing he was uutting it too harshly when he said that people who were prepared to eommi. tbe frauds he said they had committed, would be capable of doing what he now suggested. Counsel dealt at some length with.the legal points involved. . Mr Gresson said that the evidence for the defence, on the question of the inclusion of butchers' pelts, clearly suggested fraud; it was suggested that Hopkins.' when an amended tender was ma3e, inserted the letter B against casks, the contents of which ha did not know were butchers' pelts. Hopkins had denied that this was done, and counsel argued that such a charge could not be proved by inference. Mr Stewart, the manager had supported Hopkins's evidence as to the'manner in which butchers' pelts were dealt with at the works, and if it were a fraud it must have 'been a very deep-seated one. The allegations of fraud had not been proved, and the evidence was that the system of dealing with butchers' pelts was as described by Hopkins. The company had taken butchers' skins knowing tho risk tuey jan • but it had been shown that the system of keeping butchers' pelts separate was common to all freezing works. HaTd things had been said about the Kaiapoi Freezing Company, and his friend had fulminated against their oontinuous fraud in respect of tie reflations; though he had no word to say •about tho legality of the company s notion, it was not a question of morality. It mignt or mi"ht not be a matter of pommon knowledge b\tf manv of thes* regulations wero flouted; there was no justification for his friend's phillipica. The plain matter of fact was that there was a regulation preventing the company dealing in. butchers pelts, but lihey did so to the tune of £7OOO, partly to keep the butchers' business and partly because the butchers, kept bringing the company flouted the regulation-they did it with their evos open, and counsel assumed that in view of the statements made dm-in* the hearing of the present case no doubt' the proper penalties would be imposed. He submitted that the-.matter had. been given undue prominence in the present case, especially in dealing with the legal aspects of the case. Counsel then dealt atsome length with the legal points raised by opposing counsel. , His Honour said that he would take time to consider tho matter. The Court adjourned till 10 a.m. to-day. ' J . IN CHAMBEES. i Mr Justice Sim granted probate in re the estates of the following decesecd persons :- David Mann; of Dallington (MrA,R. Kink), Joseph Taylor, of Ashburton (Mr R Kennedv); Patrick Malbney. of Chvistchurch (Mr A. J. -Malley); Jeremiah John McMahon, of lakeside (Mr A. J. Malley). Letters of administration were granted m re the estate of James Lilly, of. Coopers Creek (Messrs Helmore and van Asch)..

QUARTERLY RETURNS. The returns of business dona at the Supreme Court during the. quarter ended March 31st indicate that a busy time wasexperienced. Following, are the returns with those for the quarter ended March. 31st, 1920, for purposes of 1921 1920. Criminal Cases— Indictments .. "ST if Persons convicted. .. *> .« Persons sentenced to reformative treatment . • >. 4 1 Civil Cases-r i« • Sitting days .. 20 16 Ordinary writs • •• •• ™ Trials by common jury ... *>.■■*■ Trial's by special jury .. - . " Ttinls by Judge .. .■••'« ™., Judgments entered .. •• ' " Chambers— " 1R . Sitting days .. 20 ." Motions .. •• »»» 20? Summons ... •• •• *' Petitions -',.. •• '—. * Ol i Orders .. •• . - 2 ° 9 222 , Banco— . •» <j Sitting days .. ■■•• v - . ? Hearings •-.•;, . " i 7 ' Appeals from inferior Courts.. z ■ i ■ Divorce— •■■ . Sitting „» - „» Petitions filed ~.. •• 30 20 Orders ■.. - •• 1& % " Trials by common jury •• i.■ J Trinl3 by Judg-e ... •• ] 8 l^ decrees nid .. .... . I.J .■"■■ Decrees absolute .. 13 a , Probato and Administration— Probates . •• " ' " « ■ S' < Administrations ■» .. IB ■• -o ■ Exemplifications .. . ... 13 ° Orders ... • •• •• W?.. •Reffistratioi*— i Chattels, securities, ... .-370 333 ■ Memoranda of satisfaction .., 43 -,43 Bankruptcy— . s Sitting day 3.. .. •• » 6 Debtors' petitions .. •• ' 7 * Creditors' petitions .. •• 1 * Diohaiges. . .•• •• 2 ' a , F«s— •' • £ s. i. £b. d. liankruntcy .. 55 2 6 42-10 6 Othen than Bank- •„■..«-«, « mptcy .- 1869 15 6 727 8 0

Total ..£1924 18*0 £769 18 0 magisterial TUESDAY. (Before Mr S. E. McCarthy, S.M.) DRTJKKEyiNESS. Alfred Storrie, a- second statutory-offender, was fined £l, in default 48 hours' imprisonment* BROKEN' ORDERS. Henry McCaw was convicted and fined £2 for a breach of a prohibition order, and ■lsabella Blackwell, similarly ; charged, was fined £3, in default seven days' lmpTison-m-ant. , > ■ AFTER HOURS.

The following were convicted and fined' the amounts stated for having been illegally on licensed premises after hours:— George William Cattle, £5; James Mullin (Mr Thomas), £1; James Blackley, £1; William kagle (Mr Malley), 10s. A PAWNED GUN. Archibald Braid was charged, on the information of George Gibbs (Mr A. J. Malley), with having stolen a double-barrelled gun, valued at £lO. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge of theft, but said he would plead guilty to having pawned the Sergt. Parker produced a statement signed by the accused, stating that Gibbs had left the gjin in his possession when he went to the country, and the accused pawned it as he was slrort of money. In the course of his evidence the accused said he had fully intended to redeem the gun. He was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence when called, upon, and was ordered to pay £8 10s to the prosecutor. The gun is to be returned to the-owner. MAINTENANCE. Percy G. G. Stirling'was sentenced to six months' imprisonmenj for disobedience of a maintenance order: in respect of his-wife. William Edward Cook was sentenced to 14 davs' imprisonment for disobedience of a maintenance order, no warrant to issue until applied foV. ~-.„, _ . Harriet Humphries McDonald (MxCuningham) secured maintenance, separation, and guardianship orders from Charles McDonald, maintenance being fixed at £2 10s weekly. • Separation, maintenance, and guardianship orders were issued to Anni* Ellen Anderson against her husband, Alexander Anderson, maintenance being fixed at 20s weekly. Albert Millard, an elderly man,' waa ordered to pay ioaintenanoe to his wife at the rate of 12s 6d ft week. John McAuley was ordered to pay £1 a week maintenance to his wife, for whom Mr Thomas appeared, . Maintenance, separation, and guardianship orders were issued in favour of the wife of Samuel Forbes, maintenance being fixed„at £3 iier week. Matthew Hopkins, for the disobedience of a maintenance order in respect of his wife was sentenced to one month's imprisonment, ! no warrant to be issued till applied for.