DISPUTE OVER TIMBER.

Hokitika Guardian, 21 December 1923, Page 4

DISPUTE OVER TIMBER.

WANt, V N l'l, D -c. is. Air Barton S..M. gave jinlgmetil in the ea-: * of tiic Wanganui Saslt and Door Co. v. the New Zealand Refrigerating Co. at thi' Cotitt to-day. Plaintiff’:; claimed from tleiemhiuia the sum ol BihO 12s, being the balance ol the purchase price ot certain timber sold to 'lefendaut.s. A jiortion of cite timber was rejected at Christchurch, and it was alleged that plaintiff.-, had made a breach of warranty as 10. quality and fitness. The point was taised by plaintiffs that there had been unreasonable' delay in notifying them that portions of the timber were unlit for the purpose of sash-making. The Magistrate upheld the point that notice from deleitdaiiis was 100 late to be effective and that dci'endiints by April 26th. had so treated the timber as to have lost any right they might otherwise have had to reject it. The Magistrate was of opinion that it wax impossible to say whether defendants had discharged the onus of proving affirmatively that tin* timber supplied did nut. by reason of rot and perishing, conform to the requirements of the contract. The remaining question was: “Has defendant proved that the quantity of timber greater than the overcut of 22!5 feet was properly rejected by reason of defects other than decay or perishing The evidence did not, in bis (‘pinion, over-ride the evidence of plaintiff's’ witnesses that knots, r'-in, cross grain, chisel cuds. etc., were all covered by the overcut. It seemed rather, to support that evidence. In ruiteiusioii Mr Barton found that defendants failed to establish any breach of vnrraulry. If there was merit in any of defendants’ complaints the history of tin* transaction, as defendants had carried it through, seemed well to emphasise the importance and fairness to both parties of prompt, notice of defects and complaints with an immediate invitation lo attend a joint examination of the property onrnplniuoc! about. As plaintiffs’ price was based on the invoice quantity of -10.(172 feet, and it was admitted at the hearing that defendant is properly chargeable with 37,875 feet, only deduction must be made for the present claim accordingly; also, for freight- and charges on the 2515 feet of overcut. Judgment was therefore entered for £B9 Is plus costs, solicitors’ few*, etc., bringing the amount tip to £IOO (» Gd. '