SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1441, 16 May 1912, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CLAIM KOII DAMAGES. The civil sessions of the Supreme Court were continued ycslPfdny, ulicn llr. JusItcp Chnpmnn heard an fiction fur damage? for alleged hrcadi of «;<rranty, Tlii partip-s w«re Wesley Knight, farmer, of Otaki, plaintiff, and Samuel Smart Mason,

farmer, of Lower Hutt, and Thomas Mason', of Manakau, defendants.

From 'the statement of claim it appeared that on July 22, 1911, the Masons were carrying on business at Manakau as farmers in co-partnership. On that date they sold to Knight ten tuns of potatoes at M\ per ton. At (he timo of the sale, Knight expressly made- known to the Masons that the potatoes were required for seed purposes, and he relied on the skill and judgment of the Masons to provide him with potatoes suitable for his purpose. It was (so the statement of claim alleged) in the course of business of the Masons to sell seed potatoes, and there was consequently implied by law in the contract of sale a condition that the. potatoes should be reasonably iii fur s«cd purposes. The Masons (it was alleged) expressly warranted that tho potatoes were not "blind," and would therefore bo productive, and Knight's purchase was induced by the implied condition ami express warranty. Knight planted Hie seed potatoes, and it subsequently appeared that a large proportion of them were, and had always been, unfit for seed purposes, and were moreover "blind." For these Teasons Knight claimed damages. In the statement of defence the Masons denied express warranty. They said that the potatoes were good, sound, fit for seed, and were not "blind." The defects, if any, in the growth of the potatoes \rere the result of Knight's unskilful treatment of the potatoes.

Mr. M. Myers appeared for Knight, and Mr. C. B. Morison for the Masons.

Lengthy evidence was taken before a jury of four, and as there were etiil several witnesses to be called at 5 p.m., the further hearing was adjourned until this morning. IN DIVORCE. An application, that the divorce case Paulson v. Faulsen, should bo heard by a judge alono on Friday next, was made yesterday by Mr. W\ Perry, counsel for the petitioner (Florence May Panlsen). Mr. Justice Chapman asked on what ground tho application was made. Mr. Perry: Respondent filed an answer, but his solicitors have notlieard from him since. Apparently the case is not going ■to be defended.

His Honour: I trill make the order, but if he should appear and defend the matter will have to come before a jury.