RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 130, 31 May 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

■ l H6bper and Dodson v. Martin. Thp Resident Magistrate delivered . the folipwipgjjlidgme -The.defendant, in this case is sued for damages for breach -of an express warranty to deliveri to the plaintiffs certain hops of ngdodand'mereh'aDtahle quality. It wap;, ;copjtend,ed ;by . Mr - Fell, that the, plaintiffs ought to have either refused to . receive, or at once lo have returned the goods; but this case as regards the nature of tho articiS a*dd jthe: warranty '.seems to be very similar to Poulton v. Lattimore, 9 B & C.y, ,259, and the plaintiffs appear tu have done nothing more in the. present case than was nebessary to give the hops a 'fair,' trial.- ? yyGqoA' merchantable, .hops ought, if properly dried and pocketted, to keep at least a couple ,of years iii -good order, -fend relying on their warranty, the plaintiffs'had a perfect right to store them away withpjut any close examination. It was sought to* be shewn that if the hops had. been damp at the time of delivery, the'plaintiffsmight have .detected it by the, simple process of rubbing the. hops in the hands;but there was ho obligation on them in' view of the warranty to do so, and as a matter of. fact they did not apply any such test. And I may here observe that in - the case '^of Parkinson v. Lee, 2, East, 31^4, it was accepted; as a fact that in the case of damp hops' "the damp would '. uo.t ; bo discovered in lhe bulk until it was disclosed by tho gradual process of heating." *Thd defendant has brought evidence to prove that , 'these hops wero properly dried and pocketted, aDd that samples of tbem-wero approved not only by plaintiffs but' other people accustomed to deal in them, The defendant does not appear to have dried thertTall at tlie same time, as^ ho says he began with the- grape hops for Hooper and Dodson, then , went to work for Mr Woolley and others,* resuming for Hooper apd. Dodson on another description of hops. This may possibly account for thero being six more or less . .damaged, and nine perfectly good, aa these • numbers' may represent the pockets dried at the first- "and second dryings respectively^ If all the hops had * been dried together at the same time it would unqestiouably.be very .difficult to account for oh*9 part shewing injury from damp and not the other. It seems impossible to me that the hops could, while in plaintiffs' charge, havo been damped in a way to cause the peculiar injury in the very centre of the bull*: they now exhibit. I think the true test to apply in this ease is not whether the'-hopsi were sufficiently well dried to pass muster at the time of delivery, but were, they so dried as to keep sound and good. after .being packed away in bulk for a reasonable, time? I believe from the evidence they were not, but by some carelessness or inadvertence on the part of the defendant, the hops in these six pockets' were packed. in a more or less damp condition and that this damp has shown itself in the centre of the pockets.by.tbe gradual process of heating. I am compelled therefore to find that there-has beau n breach of the warranty and that these hops were not of a good and merchantable quality, had they beeja so they-ought to have kept perfectly sourid . for a much longer time. Verdict for plaintiffs for £86 6s 4d and £6 lis costs. Mr Acton. Adams appeared,. for : the plaintiffs and 1 Mr Fell for the defendant.