RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.—Sept. 9.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume II, Issue 133, 15 September 1871, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.—Sept. 9.

(iieibre H. W. Kobinson, Esq., R.M.) INDER V. KEENAN. This wats a claim for £37 10s., the amount alleged to have been piiid in excess by plaintiff to defendant, on account of the purchase of 600 sheep. Mr. Bailtjy for plaintiff, Mr. Hertslet tor defendant. The following evidence was adduced : Utorge Webb, being sworn, said: 1 am assistant to plamtiff. On the 22ud June defendant spoke to me in Inder's Biiop about a flock of sheep under offer to aim. some of the sheep were a» good as those hanging up in the suop, and there were from 1000 to 1200 in iu« dock, wmch must be sold in out* lot. lim number was greater than he (defendant) could manage. He coul.i buy tiie wdole lot if Mr. Inder would take part of them. He led me to believe that, lie thought the flock couH be bougiit at 2s. 6d. per head at the Klatioii, and chat any number Mr. lnder might take were to be at the cost price, whatever that price might be. i supposed the sheep to be Holland's. 1 saw the sheep the day after arrival. 1 do not consider there was a single far sheep among them. Have seen similar hheep in Air. Inder's possession bought at is. 2.1. and Is. 3d. per head.

Crossexami "ted : Understood the sheep were purchased for pigmeat only. 2s. 6d. was the price at which the delendant was to buy the sheep at trie station. Made no bargain with defendant, nur was I present when any bargain was made between plaintiff and det* n iant.

\\ .-liter Inder, being sworn, said : I am the plaint iff in this cause. On the 22nd .June 1 saw the defendant Keenan. Defendant said that he had an opportunity of purchasing 1000 sheep, and asked if ] (the plaintiff) could take bo me of them, as he could not do with the whole. Defendant said that 2s. 61. would be the lowest price. W I would take 500 or 600, and take delivery at '.Holland's station, I could have them at cost price, but if he (defendant) delivered them at N asehy he would charge me 3d. per head profit. Defendant did not say the sheep were Holland's. He did say that some of them were asgocd as sheep that were hanging in my shop, and which had cost me 8s 'there were no good sheep among the lot delivered to me—they did not pay for boiling. 1 certainly would not have had them at any price had 1 known what they were. I have bought better sheep for Is. ■ arranged to send for them on the 11th July, to save the 3d. per head. I sent a cheque for payment of 600 at 2s. 6d. per head—£7s. I produce defendant's receipt. When they ariived 1 discovered that they were a very inferior lot. Subsequently learnt that t le sheep were bought for far less than 2s. 6d. Applied to defendant Keenan to n:ake allowance. He refused. Have since learnt that the sheep came from (»lasslord\s station, and were bought lor Is 4d. each. Cross-examined: Mr. Keenan never led me to believe that they were to be any but old ewes. The price to me was to be the same as that at which Keenan was to pay at rhe station. There was no written a between us, nor was any third person present when ihe agreement was made. William Baxter, being sworn, said : I went to Holland's station in July last, for some sheep. 1 got 601 from deunuant, which 1 drove to Naseby. iiobert Laurie, being sworn, said: I am the the manager ot the Matakunui {Station. Know defendant. Met him at' Dry bread on the 26th June. Was in treaty with, him for the sale of a lot O; old ewes. Asked Is. 6d. per head,

but could only get is. 41. They were crawlers. Delivered 1292 at Rolltnds. I produce book with entry at la. 4d. Delivered them on the llth July. Inder's man was there. 1 counted out to him 600 or (502. Cecil Albert de Latour, being sworn, said: In June or July last I saw the defendant about some sheep. I met him; He said he knew of a lot of old sheep which he could buy cheap at Glassford's, at 2*. each at the station. Wanted me to join him in the purchase. [ declined. Saw the sheep afterwards They were the worst class of crawlers, and their only value their skin. For the defence—

Thomas Keenan (defendant), being sworn, said: I am a butcher at St. Bathans! Came to Naseby on 22nd June last. Saw the witness Webb, and twld him I wanted to see lnder. Saw Inder next day. Told him that I had the offer of a lot of old ewes—about 1200. Asked what he would give for half of them. He asked me what J wanted. I said 2s. 9d. per head .it Saseby, or 2s. 6d at Blackstone Hill, subject to an actual purchase being effected by me Plaintiff went to consult his manager, Webb. When he returned he said he would take 600 of them at 2s. 61. I subsequently concluded the purchase from Mr. Laurie. Wrote to lnder to say that T had bought the sheep, and that they would be at Blackstoue Hill on July 10th. 1 produce his reply. When lnder sent for the sheep he sent a cheque for £75, being the price agreed on. Sold them to inder as old ewes. I deny that there was any other or subsequent I'jreement between* lnder and myself The agreement between us was tor 6 )'•) sheep at 2s. 6d. eaeh, and no other Could have sold all the skins at 2.-». ench, under an agreement which 1 produce.

Cross-examined : Did not tell either Inder or Webb that any of the sheep were so good that I could put them in my shop. Did not tell Inder that 1 could not purchase the lot because they were too large a flock for me. Did not tell Lautour that the cost price woirld' be 2*. at the station. Told him I would sell them to him at 2s. NVver told Inder that the co t ;rice would be 2s. 61. Never told him that he should ha*e the sheep ;-=t co t price. D d not tell Inder or anybo.ly else that I had killed any of the same description of sheep and bun*; them in my shop at St. Bathans. Walter Inder recalled : Keenan told me that he had killed some of the samf ; description of sheep and hung them in his shop at St. Bathans. George Webb recalled : Defendant did tell me that he had killed a portion of the same nock of sheep and hung them in his shop at St. Bathans. The Magistrate, in giving judgment, said, in effect, that the case depended entirely on what was the contract between the parties. Their evidence was directly conflicting. It was one of those cases which would have been more satisfactory were it possible to try it by a jury. In support of the defendant there was the fact that the plaintiff had paid money for the sheep at 2s. 6.1. per head, from which it might be inferred that such price had been settled between them. On the other hand, there was the evidence of Webb that the idea he got from his conversation with Keenan was that he intended to offer the sheep to Inder at cost price ; and that of de Latour, that Keenan had offered the same sheep to him at 25., as cost price; also the evidence of Webb and Inder, that the sheep had been represented to them by the defendant as being a good lot, some being fit for sale as meat, whereas they had bee i proved to be a very bad lot indeed. The conduct of the defendant was not straightforward, but tricky. His mind was not certain as to the bargain ; but were he satisfied as to the bargain, his judgment mighr. be unpleasant to the defendant. The question, after all, was whether there is sufficient before the Court to establish the fact that the sale to Inder was to be at cost price, whatever it might be. The; natural presumption would seem to be that the sale was made at 2s. 6d. per head, and great weight was to be attached to the fact of the payment of the money and the acceptance of delivery of the animals. It seemed to the Court probable

that defendant did make a false statement as to w uit the sipep wore to eowt him, but this would not necessarily avoid the transaction, if he had Hold the sheep at 2s. Gd., it matrere 1 not what they might have cost him. The wnole transaction was of a very loose nature, but he could not see that under the circumstances the plaintiff was entitled to relief. The case was one of great doubt, and he felt it his duty to .jive the defendant the benefit of that doubt. Case dismissed.