APPEAL COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 238, 2 July 1919, Page 3

APPEAL COURT

. TRANSACTION IN SHEEP WAS THE CONTRACT A. VALID ONE? A case removed from the Supreme Court, Chrislcluircli, came before the Appeal Court yesterday. On the bench were His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir'.ltobert: Stout.), Mr. Justice Cooper, Mr. Justice Hint, and Mr. Justice Herdmnn. The parties were Charles F. Murray, of Whnranui, Blenheim, sheep-farmer, ptnintilf; and William John Hopkins, of Christchurch, land agent, defendant.

Mr. C. I'. Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr. I l '. Johnston, of Christchurch, appeared for Murray and Mr. H. J. Berwick, of Christchurch, for Hopkinsi

' The statement of claim as presented in the Supreme Court, Christchurch, before llis Honour Mr. Justice Herdman, was to the effect that on January 11, 1919, Messrs. l'yno and Co., carrying on business at Christchurch and Kaikoura, contracted in writing with plaintiff, as agent for and on behalf of the defendant, for tho purchase from the plaintiff of tho tatter's annual draft of ewes, about 1300 in number, at 325. 6d. per head, delivery 'to be given and taken on February 28, 1919, subject to 5 per cent, rejection. The actual number of the draft was 1261 owes, <md in' accordance with the contract defendant was informed, but ho refused to take delivery, and was then notified thnt the sheep were'at his risk. Plaintiff then had the sheep driven to Christchu'reh, where they were sold by auction on March IG, 1919, the net amount realised being .{SISOB 13s. 3d. Plaintiff incurred expense in gracing and driving, and claimed ,£562 ISs. 3d., being the difference between the contract prico and the price realised at auction, plus grazing.and driving expenses. The defendant denied that he had convracted to buy the sheep, or that Pyno and Co., or any other firm, were authorised as agents or otherwise to purchase sheep for him, either from plaintiff or any other person. And as a further defence, defendant claimed that if there was any agreement for the purchase of sheep by defendant from plaintiff as alleged, such agreement did not comply with the provisions of the Statute of Frauds, nor with the Sele of Goods Act, 1803, section 6, and defendant pleaded suchi statutes as a defence.

The case was heard by Mr. ,Tustic& Jlerd'man and a jury, and tho findings of the inry were that Hopkins did authorise Pyne and Co., Kaikoura, to enter into a contract 011 his behalf for tho purchnso of the sheep from plaintiff, and that the sheen were purchased from the plaintiff hy Pyne and Co. in pursuance cf tho authority Riven to them by Hopkins, ahd awarded the plaintiff <£562-18s. 3d., the full amount of tho damages claimed. . '

Counsel for defendant moved for a new trial, on the ground that His Honour rejected rvidnncft which ought to have been admitted, also that tho Judge misdirected the jury fin material points of lav.-.. On the hearing of plaintiff's motion tor judgment for plaintiff, and ant's motion for a new trial, it was ordered that the case be removed to the Court of Appeal.

Argument on the points raised by counsel for Hopkins wns taken at some length. Both sides quoted numerous authorities in support. . The case had not concluded when tho Court rose yesterday.