SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3094, 26 May 1917, Page 12

SUPREME COURT

CARRIER'S CLAIM AGAINST HUTT COUNTY ' VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF In the Supronifl Court rcstcrtlay, His Honour Mr. Justice Ilosking iiud a jury of four resumed Iho hearing of an notion for .£'ls9 damages, brought by Lonniird C'lonlce against the Hutt County. llr. T. Young appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. flislop for the defendant county. Plaintiff was :t carrier at Ix>wer Hutt, and on May 13, 1!>16, at Paekakariki, ho hail an accident which resulted in serious damago to his motor lorry and its load. Ho claimed that the cause of the accident was the state of the road and drain, and that for this state the defendant county was responsible. After a two-hours' retirement, the jury brought in a verdict for plaintiff, assessing damages at ,£250. Mr. Young's motion: "That judgment bo entered accordingly," was adjourned, and will be dealt with later. r ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT. Before His Honour alone. Robert Burns Orange, of Wellington, indent merchant, claimed from the .Poverty Bay Meat Co., Ltd., the. sum of J!H3G (is., as the price of goods sold and delivered, or as damages for the defendant company's breach of contract in not accepting the said goods. There was a. counterclaim by (he defendant company for a similar amount. Mr. A. W. Blair, wilh Mr. V. H. Putnam, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. M. Mvh's for tho defendant company. Plaintiff alleged that tho defendant company contracted io purchase from him certain link bolt gear. Ho delivered part of the goods, which the company accented, but. in July, 1011!. tho company wholly refused to accept iho remainder of tho goods, and repudiated the. contract. Plaintiff' claimed that as there was no market for tho goods in New Zealand ho would incur by reason of the company's refusal to accept: them a loss erjniralont to their full'value. Tho defendant company alleged that plaintiff had broken his contract by failing Io deliver tlio goods within tho lime specified; and, further, stated that; it was entitled to. and did, cancel (he contract. Tho company was, by tjia lion-dolirery of tho goods by plaintiff, compelled lo mako substituted arrangements at a cost exceeding tho contract prico for (he goods comprised .in. the ugreemenl. It therefore counter-claimed the said contract price, viz., .CJIIU! 6s. Tho ease was partly heard, and was then adjourned till to-day.