DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2028, 24 August 1880, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

OH B I STOHUROH.

Monday, August 23. [Before His Honor Judge Ward.] GBOH6B KING V ED. BTUGGALL.

The following is the conclusion of the above case :

For the defence, Mr Joynt called Wm. D. Wood, who deposed that he was a member of the firm of Wood, Shand and Co. In January, 1879, flour was being sold at £lO per ton ; in February and March, £9 ; in November and December, 1878, £lO. The prices mentioned would bo for wholesale quotations. Edward Steggall deposed that in 1879 he was a miller at the Hororata. All that took place in reference to the transaction with King was this: He (Steggall) went into a passage with him, and in a few words they agreed upon the sale of the flour to King, the price to be £8 17a 6d per ton. King said, “Let it be good,” and witness said there had been no complaints about it. That was all. This took place in the passage. Witness never went to the office at all. Mr King never wrote anything down in his presence. Saw no book in Mr King’s hand during the interview. He did not subsequently show witness anything written by him in relation to the flour. Witness said nothing to the effect that the flour was to be of guaranteed best quality. King complained about the flour, and witness went to his office. King wanted him to take the flour back, and witness declined as he had given no guarantee with the flour. Ho also said he wished to hear no more about it. He subsequently wrote King to the same effect in answer to a communication from him on the subject. Witness knew no reason why the flour sold to King should be bad. Did not speak to Mr Palmer about it. There were new stones working on the wheat from which the flour was manufactured. Sold portions of the same lot of flour to five other persona. Also had three bags sent to Mr Wilson’s store for delivery to bakers in town. Saw bread that had been baked from the flour at Mr Thiele’s. The bread was very good. Sold parcels of flour to Toosey and Olliver in February and March. The two lots wore not from the same wheat.. The price of flour fell in February from £lO to £9. Remember meeting Mr King in September, when that gentleman asked him if he was going to settle the claim he had made on account of the flour. Witness told him no, as he had given him no guarantee, and King then said he should sue him for the amount. Royse, Stead and Oo.’s name was not mentioned between them. Had never at any time asked Mr King to ship the flour on his account. Made a settlement with Mr Stead in relation to the flour sold to him. That settlement was made under advice. The flour, twenty-five tons, was shipped to Auckland on his (witness’) account, and soma of it sold for £ll per ton. Do not remember having a conversation in June, 1879, with Mr Howe in relation to flour. Had a conversation with Howe recently as to his evidence in this case. He said ho could not do witness any good or any harm. Mr King had given no particulars of loss of any kind. Cross-examined—l made a memo, of the transaction with King, but not in his presence. I gave Royse, Stead and Co. a guarantee that the flour was of good quality, but cannot remember the precise wording of the agreement made. Stephen Simpson deposed that he had tested a bag of flour sent to him by Messrs Toosey and Olliver. He found it to be a good average flour for the season. It made a good average loaf, of good color, and sweet taste.

Corroborative evidence to the above was given by two other practical bakers. W. H. Mcßeth gave evidence to the effect that he had purchased flour from Mr Stegpall in August, 1878. It was satisfactory flour.

Mr Stoggall, re-called, said the flour sold to Hawkins and Mcßeth was ground from the same wheat as that sold to Mr Ring. The same stones were used for grinding. Cross-examined by Mr Garrick—Tho flour was not part of tho same lot, but from tho same mixture of wheat

George Weston proved that he had purchased flour from the defendant during the latter part of 1878 and beginning of 1879, and found it good. Edward Chapman, a contractor, gave similar evidence. George Somerville, farmer, had purchased flour from defendant ever since he came to the district, and found it to be of good quality. John Thorne gave corroborative testimony. David Manson, farmer, had also been a purchaser of flour from defendant. Couldn’t B ay much about the flour, that being more in his wife’s department, but knew the bread was good from personal experience. The evidence for the defendant closed here.

Counsel agreed that the first point to consider was whether a warranty had been given, and it so whether it had been broken. His Honor said the case seemed to turn upon the credibility of the evidence of the defendant and the plaintiff respectively. Their testimony was conflicting, but it appeared that a serious loss had been sustained on the flour made by defendant, and that he had given a guarantee. His own evidence seemed to indicate this, Mr King-, having, according to his testimony, said “Let it be good,” which showed that he (the plaintiff) reserved the right to refuse the flour if it were not good, Judgment I >r the plaintiff for £IOO and costs. The Court then adjourned.