KNIGHT V. BEVAN.

Otaki Mail, Volume 26, 5 September 1919, Page 2

KNIGHT V. BEVAN.

o JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. Considerable interest has been displayed over the above case, which has occuptcd tho attention of the S.M Court at Otaki for the last two sittings'. It will be remembered that the claim was made by Wesley Knight for £lO Ss 6d for potatoes supplied to George Bevan. Tho following judgment was to-day given by Mr E. Page, S.Mj—"I am of the opinion that a verdict must be entered for plaintiff. The main issue between the parties (apart from the dates and amounts of tho deliveries) depends upon the original bargain that was made between them upon the sale of tho potatoes. It is admitted by both that at the time of the sale tho Northern Star potatoes had been lying out for some time and that some of them would require pickling over. The plaintiff says that in consideration of this the price (which for picked seed would ordinarily be at a higher rate) was fixed at £5. The defondant at the hearing allegod that the bargain was that the defendant should take away the potatoes, pick them over and pay for those which he considered fit for use at the rate of £5 per ton. The defendant did not, however, in his correspondence with tho plaintiff, put the matter in that way. In such correspondence he complains at tho action of the plaintiff iu pressing him for payment, and complains that the seed potatoes were "absolutely bad," and states that he had bought well-sorted seed elsewhere at Hr, pe* ton. If, as he now alleges, tho bargain was that ho was only to pay for the good seed which ho .should' select, tho fact that some of the seed was bad should not concern him much. .Moreover, the defendant, did not at any 'time advise the plaintiff t.f the result of tho picking over nor give him any opportunity of viewing or checking tho picking over which the defendant says ho was entitled to make. In his letter of February 20th last tho defendant, after making the complaints above referred te, asks for u statement of plaintiff's account and says, "I will arrange for the money to pay you off without your assistance." An account wai- supplied on February 2-lth, and on receipt of it the defendant wrote: "Dear Mr Knight, I am sorry I cannot let you have a cheque just at present, but will do so on Saturday next without fail." Payment was not then made, but on sth April a chequo was sent for part of the amount claimed. The balance is now sued for. The original bargain was an oral one, arid it may be that the defendant's recollection of it has been dimmed by the* time that has elapsed since it was made. I think that the plaintiff'* version of tho bargain that was made is the correct one. There is a dispute also as to the quantity of potatoes delivered and the dates of delivery. The dates of delivery arc not material except in »o far as they ran be shown to support the other evidence given by the respective sides. I am uuablo to reconcile the two diaries that have been produced, one for the plaintiff and one for the defendant, purportsto contain entries of the various loads delivered. The diaries differ bopcl<r*,ly both as to dates and as to amount--' On this issue I Hnd in favour of the plaintiff. Judgment will be. cnterej for tho plaintiff for flic amount claimed, £l6 3s M, with costs to bo fixed by the Clerk of (he Court. The diaric, will be retained in Court. Costs £5 Bs, less costs paid into Court, V.-VTO allowed. '