DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2523, 10 May 1882, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

OHBISX CHURCH. Wednesday, Mat 10. fßefore hia Honor Judge Ward.] This morning, at eleven o’clock, the May sitting of this Court was opened in the Provincial Chamber. The cause list comprised seven cases. E. HINTON AND W. H PRICE V A. LANDBRGAN. Claim for £l6B 18s lOd, balance due on building contract. His Honor will deliver judgment to morrow at noon. THB QUEEN T G TALBOT AND T. MCLATCHIE. Claim for £19!) 7s 2d, storage of goods. Mr Perceval, with consent of the other aide, obtained an adjournment. J. STUDHOLME V THB QUEEN. Claim for damages, £2OO. Mr Perceval obtained an adjournment, with consent of the other side. JAMBS M'HAEFIH T CHARLES FBASEB. Claim for work and labor done, £152 12j 51. Mr Stringer obtained an adjournment by consent. CHASLEB DUGGAN V THB QUEEN. Claim for damages, £7l Is 93. Mr Perceval, by consent, obtained an adjournment, HYAM MARKS V EDWARD ELLIS. Claim for £27 10s, dishonored promissory note. Case adj mrned by consent. B. D, LONG V W. A, B. ADAMS. Mr Spaokman for plaintiff; Mr Stringer for defendant. Claim for damages on sale of sheep, £92 6i 2d. The plaintiff deposed he received an order from Adams for 1500 ewes, after shearing, at 7s, the sheep to be of the Horsley Downs fl >ck. Plaintiff had replied that he could not guarantee a definite number. A telegram was received in reply, accepting ono half two to»th and the other half four-tooth. On the 29 n November a telegram came to hand that the Sheep Inspector had vetoed the travelling of the sheep. Had telegraphed that Mr Lance would not permit him (plaintiff) to take sheep sold to Adams. Wrote about the difficulty, and telegraphed regarding a forfeit, adding that delivery could be taken on 10th December. On December 3rd re oeived a telegram, in consequence of which plaintiff bought 1762 sheep of the exact description mentioned in Adams’ letter, there heirs no breken-mouthed sheep among them. On December 6th telegraphed to Adams that’ he (witness) might have 2000 sheep, and’ would wire further. Received a reply that there woe no objection to 2000, provided the surplus were two-tooth. Beceived another telegram to obviate delay by giving Mr Foster, the inspector, the requisite notice on behalf of defendant. Beceived a letter from Mr Walker, defendant’s manager, dated Jolly’s Pass, Bth December, stating that the inspeo or’s conditions could not be com plud with, and tho sheep were not obtainable. On December 14th plaintiff sent a telegram for explanation. Beceivod telegram on same day, saying that sender was very vexed, having thought the permit certain. Plaintiff telegraphed, “Am I to keep sheep on your account or not?’ Plaintiff thought he wired the word “sell,’ and not “keep.” Beo ived a reply that, as tho manager refused, defendant could not take the sheep. Plaintiff wired, in reply to an intimation that the bargain was off, that he would require defendant to make good all losses incurred through resale of the sheep; and further that the sheep would be sold at Amberley the following Friday. The loss was 81 a head on 1762, balance of claim accruing from auctioneer’s commission, driving, &c. Cross-examined —The sheep were bought from Mr Lance, who let plaintiff have the sheep sooner than that the forfeit of £IOO should be incurred. Lance could not refuse the sheep, having already sold them to plaintiff. Bought the first lot on December 12th, tho second on 27th. Took delivery of tho first lot on the 12th, but must have bought them earlier. By his Honor—Bought the first lot, about 420, two or three weeks before selling them to Adams. After receiving telegram that Inspector Knivett had fixed conditions, plaintiff bought the second lot, being 487 four tooth sheep at 6j 63, 640 two-tooth at 5s 61, and 620 .from MacMthon at 6s 61. Tho 620 were young, chiefly full-mouthed. Plaintiff paid for them as ho bought them. To Mr Stringer— On December 12i,h took tho sheep a portion of the way to Amberley. Took delivery of the balance ou the 27th. Had not a written agreement with Messrs Mallook and Lance. Sold tho whole lot together. Plaintiff's usual charge was £1 a thousand per night for paddocking. Wrote on 12th December, offering to take delivery “ to-morrow.” Lived at Weka Pass, and was sometimes away two or throe days. Letters from Jolly's Pass went first to Christchurch, en route for Weka Pass, Sent the inspector notice on receipt of defendant’s telegram. (]A letter was read from defendant to show that the inspector had demanded compliance with impracticable conditions prior to his consenting to issue a permit]. Tho defendant deposed that he never obtained the permit, being unable to comply with the conditions in regard to fencing. Was extremely anxious to procure the sheep, and did his best to obtain the permit. Under the 46ih sec. sheep were not allowsd to traverse infected country unless it were satisfactorily shown that sufficient precautions were taken to prevent the sheep from becoming infected. Plaintiff, recalled by his Honor, deposed that he paid for two lota on tho 27ch December, having taken delivery on that day, being 620 from McMahon and 610 two tooth. Tho 487 and 620 were bought on receipt of telegram about the £IOO forfeit. Gave McMahon 6-i 61, and gave 5r 6i for the twotooth*. Closed with McMahon on receipt of telegram. Purchased only the two-tooths from Messrs. Mallock and Lance.

By Stringer—The case had nothing to do with the price plaintiff told Adams he (plaintiff) had given for the sheep. May havt said 6j GJ all round. In sheep dealing one was not expected to tell everything. Counsel having spoken, His Honor stated that the contract could only be avoided by the absolute refusal of the inspector to issue the permit. J udgment was accordingly given for plaintiff,