A wheat CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume IX, Issue 719, 15 January 1903, Page 2

A wheat CASE.

BUYERS a LABILITY. By Telegraph- Press Association. Timaru. last night

The b.M- to-day gave judgment in the dispute betv,ten J. Meehan, local grain merchant, imd S C. Brown, Hour miller, of Auckland. Some months ago Meehan sold to Brown through an agent by satnpic and desdiption 3-jb) busho'.s of wheat f.n.'ii. a. Titur.ru. The doi-ciipiion was *■ Good f..w! wheat—you iii'gbt c ill :t second class iiiiding : it is d>\ and bird, but -::rl\- .a irons ;i:- i rail's, be/ is bro.vn ; accept thsi ii.t i siiipia d." il paid tor aitd u.tiied it. It .tiei not make sii'isfactoi\ iloiir. and tic c.-ui/eitinuuled the

second ho If, but was ton lute, as tne wiicat was on. o iivul. He rGused to accept it. and (lie wheat was sold as fowl wheat at 3s (subsequently it was resold at os 8J). Median brought a suit for the recovery of the difference of 5d per bushel and expenses. For the defendant witnesses testified that the wheat did not answer the description of dry and hard, as some was soft, and some had sprouted. His Worship considered that the first term of the description, fowl wheat, should have put the buyer on his guard, aud that he did not reject it because the wheat was not up to sample or description, but because it did not suit his purpose, which vendor had not guaranteed it would. Buying on such terms the defendant took chance of it, it suiting him to purchase if, and he must stand to it.. Judgment would be for plaintiff, with costs.