FARM STOCK AND FURNITURE

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 143, 6 March 1918, Page 7

FARM STOCK AND FURNITURE

.A DEAL THAT COLLAPSED.

In ; the Magistrate's Court yesterday Mr. ' \\. u.. .luuutul, is.iVi., uonvered reserved judgment in the case of ■briggf. llooitiboii v. lNicuoias liar, a claim .for ■ £47 : 10s., made, up of refund £25 deposit paid oir the purchase of defendant's.lurni and kit lus. travelliug expenses between. ■ Wellington and Stratford.' The defendant placed hia leasehold farm and stock in , the hands of W. Eveiison, Wellington, for salo at £260. The stock included 8 cows, 10 porkers, 4 litters of pigs, and other farm animals, but deieudaut's furniture was excluded. .The particulars were' .furnished to liobinson on December IU, and on .'December 1.9 he went t-0.. Stratford, and after inspection arranged with" defendant that tho furniture (valued at. £10; should be included at tho price iixeJi," viz., £'250. Plaintiff returned to Wellington, and informed Evensou that he IIIIU arranged to buy ut £250, funuture inoluued. An agreement lvas drawn up on December 'IL and signed i\'o furtlier inventory of tJic fitocU and furniture was taken 1 except that handed to. plaintiff by defendant's. agent, but with-tho exception of tho pigs all tho other articles wero agreed upon and well defined.' Defendant had been advised by his agent, that plaiutitf would' como up on January 3 to take posseßsion. Defendant received tho agreement of sale several, days before January 3, read it over,- and the only objection he had to it was that tho furniture was included, and the lease was wrong, but he failed to notify, his agent of them, and tho Magistrate held that defendant's failure to object inclusion of the.furniture when that fact was brought to his knowledge amounted to a. ratification of tho agreement, and ho became bound by its conditions. Plaintiff, on arrival at tho farm on January 3, found that only two young pigs remained out of the four litters oifered for sale by defendant, and tho others were missing. Defendant admitted that he, had disposed of these, and it was agreed that this matter should he submitted to the arbitration of a Mr. Pugli, who decided that 15 small pigs could not be accepted as four litters, tho result of tho arbitration being that defendant had to allow plaintiff £50 Bs. on account of pigs sold, «nd sooner tlian accept this and complete the transaction defendant offered to pay plaintiff his travelling expenses to and from Wellington oil condition that the contract bo rescinded. Plaintiff consented to this, and £22 10s. was agreed upon as tlie amount. Tho Magistrate held that, the form of receipt produced also indicated that tho £25 deposit was to bo refunded. The deposit, tho Magistrate held, was paid to defendant's .agent as part , of the purchase money, and when defeip&mt and plaintiff,agreed that the contract should not he completed plaintiff be'oame entitled to its refund. ' Tho Magistrate decided that plaintiff was entitled to the amount claimed, £47 10s., and gave judgment .accordingly. Defendant was also ordered to pay costs, totalling £6 14a. At tho hearing Mr. T. Young appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. D. R. Hoggard for defendant.