REID AND GRAY v. AGRICULTURAL AND PASTORAL ASSOCIATION.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2002, 24 July 1880, Page 3

REID AND GRAY v. AGRICULTURAL AND PASTORAL ASSOCIATION.

A case involving a prinoiple of importance to exhibitors at agricultural prize shows, and others connected therewith, was heard before C. Whitefoord, Esq., R.M., and J. Ollivier, Esq., J.P., at the Resident Magistrate's Court, yesterday. Mr McOonnel appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr George Harper for the defendants. Mr McOonnel stated the facts to be as follows :—This is a case brought by Messrs Reid and Gray, farm implement and machine makers, against Messrs Duncan and Murphy, representatives of the Agricultural and Pastoral Association. The claim is for the recovery of £26, being the amount of nine firstolass prizes which Messrs Reid and Gray claim they obtained at the late show. I believe £23 has been paid into Conrt, in respect to what prizes has not been mentioned, so that there is a balance of £3 yet owing. It is not the value of the prizes in a monetary point of view that my clients claim, but to challenge certain aspersions, whether rightly or wrongly, that have got abroad j'd reference to the prize for the broad-castsowing machine. Certain things got into the papers oasting reflections on my c lients with reference to an award made to them for a machine exhibited, and it is for the purpose of upholding their reputation this action is brought. It has been arranged between Mr Harper and myself that this case shall be tried purely on its merits, and no technical point shall be taken by one side or the other. Mr Harper explained that the amount paid into Court had been specified as for all amounts except the first prize of £3 for class 15.

Robert Reid said he was an implement maker in Otago, and had agents in Dunedin, Oiimuru, and Christohuroh. The catalogue of the firm's prices, produced, contained a woodcut illustration of a broad-cast sowing maohine marked £24, and a woodcut of another broadcast sowing machine, with extras attached, for grain, grass, and rape seed sowing, marked £36. He received a list of prizes to be awarded by the Christchurch Association, and in accordance therewith sent in certain exhibits under class 15, and received a first prize of £3 for a broad-cast sowing maohine. It bore a ticket "value £24." Witness had other appliances exhibited. Near the machine referred to were harrows and canisters, which were extras, and if attached would have made the value £36. The same machine, with extras attached, was exhibited at Timaru in Ootober, the price fixed being £36. The firm's catalogues were distributed all over the grounds, and placed on exhibits. Witness, his brother, and the manager at Christchurch were on the ground, and willing to answer any questions that might be asked them. At Timaru a prize was given for the broadcast machine, with all its appliances, and at Ohristohurch extras were not mentioned in the list. The extras were alongside the machine, and if anyone had asked him if they were included he would have said no. They were not put in for competition. After the show a person from Messrs Miles, Hassal and Co.'s came to get a machine similar to the one which took the prize, and witness warned him of an article which appeared in the papers that morning, and said he was not to think he would get it for £24. This person said he was not sure whether that was what he was oommiesioned for, but he would enquire, and if he did not return before a stated time it was to be sent to a certain address. It was three or four months before the firm heard of the association's decision with regard to the prize in question, and subsequently the committee sent a letter enclosing a resolution passed by them. A reply was sent, and some correspondence oarried on. Croßs-examined—Under the heading of " Implements,'' the catalogue stated that retail prices of exhibits should be mentioned in the entries, and that judges were to take into consideration the prices so put on them. James Reid, one of the plaintiffs, gave corroborative evidence, and added that he expressly told his manager, James Dalziel, that the extras were not to be exhibited for competition, but to be placed separate from the implements. The Hon. Matthew Holmes, one of the judges in this class, whea spoken to by witness as to whether,,' he was misled in his judgment by the extras being there, said, " It's all bosh ; I was not misled." William Harper, for the defence, said as far as the Agricultural Association was concerned, it was simply urged that plaintiffs had put on a deceptive price. It was not alleged that they did so fraudulently ; and he would show that the judges were misled. J. Gilmour said he was a marshal appointed by the committee of the Association to point out machinery to be judged. Mr Holmes, one of the judges, remarked on the cheapness of Messrs Reid and Gray's broad-cast sower, and they appeared to think the extras were included. One of the canisters was on the implemont. Other evidence was given to the effect that extensive applications had been made to plaintiffs for similar implements to that which took the prize at the show for £24, the price at which it was ticketed, and the wouldbe purchasers were deceived whon they found extras were not included.

The Court regarded the case as of a simple nature. It web brought as a teat, and not to recover any large amount. There was evidently a mistake in placing the extras which were not included bo near the implement, and this would appear to have misled ; but plaintiffs were exonerated from any wilful act of deception. Judgment would be given for the amount paid into Court, without coßts.