BAIGENT v. BIRD.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume III, Issue 133, 8 June 1868, Page 2

BAIGENT v. BIRD.

To the Editor op the Nelson Evening Mail. Sib. — In your account of the case Baigent v. Bird, you!!oinitted stating that defendant pleaded having delivered the wheat at the mill, to be examined before he sold it and accepted what was considerably below the market price for it. And the plaintiff's principal witness in speaking of the stinking wheat, stated in evidence that it being so clean &c, the purchasers at the (forced) sale had bought it for seed. I did not offer plaintiff good wheat for Bs. per bnshel, as I was then selling the better wheat at Bs. 6d. and 9s. per bushel. Yours &c, J. Bird. Lower Wakefield, June 5, 1868. [The wheat in question was delivered at three different times. The two first loads of wheat were examined, as stated in our report, and found to be good, but the rest, containing about 90 bushels, owing to the confidence hitherto reposed in the defendant, was not examined until five or six days after its delivery, and was then found to be stinking and 'fusty,' and although, as Mr Bird states, saleable for seed, was certainly unfit for the purpose for which he disposed of it to Mr Baigent. Moreover, the plaintiff swore distinctly that he had bargained, when he advanced the money in 1865, that he was to receive good wheat. No mention whatever was made on the hearing of the case of the defendant having other and • better wheat' than that delivered to the plaintiff, who, having advanced the money on defendant's first crop, had a right to the first offer of it. If the plaintiff had then refused to allow the fair market price for it, defendant should have taken his wheat where he could get a higher price for it and thus have repaid the plaintiff the sum advanced.—Ed. N. E. M.] /