DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2027, 23 August 1880, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, August 23. [Before His Honor Judge Ward.l QEOBGB KING V ED. STEGGAXD.”

Mr Garrick appeared for the plaintiff, Mr Joynt for the defendant. In this case the plaintiff sought to recover the sum of £2OO as damages for loss sustained by him on account of a breach of warranty in the sale of a parcel of flour, purchased by him from Edvard Steggall, n miller. The grounds of defence were ;—lst. That the def-ndant did not sell the flour to the plaintiff in the terms alleged in the plaint; 2nd, that the defendant did not warrant the flour as alleged ; 3rd, that the said flour was o f good quality. Mr Garrick having bristly opened his case, George King was the first witness examined, and stated in detail the terms of the sale, which was the subject of this action, and explained what steps he had taken on finding the flour of inferior quality, namely, to write and complain to Steggall. He wrote twice, and in the last letter remarked that a good customer in Wellington had cancelled an order on finding that the flour was not of the quality guaranteed, and asked him to take be.ck the balance. Witness received no reply to this letter. He wrote again on the 24th of March and the 16th of April, the latter containing an account of the claim on Steggall for loss sustained by the flour. The defects in the flour complained of by the bakers were that it was weak and dark. Neither of these letters were replied to by the defendant. In May, witness wrote a more urgent letter. King and 00. bought about 100 tons of this flour, and Royso, Stead and 00. bought the balance of it. Witness had a personal interview with Steggall, and asked him why he would not consider the claim for compensation in the same way as he had to Royse, Stead and 00. Steggall replied that he had not guaranteed the flour sold to witness, but had to Royee, Stead and Co. The retail dealers, to whom witness sold the flour, returned it on his hands, and ha sustained a heavy loss thereby. This he pointed out to Mr SteggalL.

Mr Joynt cross-examined the witness at considerable length. No written guarantee was given by Steggall. Witness took his word for it.

Q-eorgo Stead, a member of the firm of Eoyse, Stead and Co., deposed that his firm purchased from Mr Steggall from 50 to 100 tons of flour. A portion of it went to Napier and a portion to Wellington. Complaints were made regarding the flour, and his firm sustained a loss on it. The flour wa» guaranteed by Steggail. The flour was said to be bad in every way, poor quality, bad color and wesk —such being the bakers’ complaints regarding it. By Mr Joynt—Mr Steggall gave my firm a wiitten guarantee as to the quality of the flour. The flour sent to Napier was sold there by public auction, and fetched about £4 10b per ton. It was understood that Mr Steggall would make good whatever loss might be sustained by my firm on account of the flour.

William Howe stated that he was acting for Toosoy and Olliver in 1879, and in his capacity as salesman some of the flour (similar to that in question) passed through his hands. It was of bad quality, and they lost on the sale. Mr Steggall stated to him, in relation to King’s demand, “That ha had not given him a written guarantee.” J. S. Olliver had some of the flour. The difference in qualify between it and good quality flour would be about £2 per ton. Onarles Blackburn, J, L. Wilson, J. T. ITavi.ll, John Hopper, S. W. Palmer were also examined:

inis concluded the case for the plaintiff [Left sitting.]