THE WOOL CASE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXVIII, Issue 100, 3 December 1915, Page 6

THE WOOL CASE.

JUDGMENT FOR THE DE- • v PENDANT. His Worship, Mr W. G. Kenrick, S.M., delivered judgment this morning in the- case, Davidson and Co., Wellington (Mr A. H. Johnstone, instructed by Malone and King), v. An-

! gus Fraser (Mr R. Spence), for j breach’ of contract on the sale of clpfondant’s wool clip. “The plaintiffs claim the , slim of £l3l. 5s as damages for breach of . a contract in. writing contained in a letter dated November 17, 1914, from. I Bayly. and Co., .agents for defendant, to" plaintiffs, and a telegram; bearing ! date November 19, 1914, from plaintiff to Bayly and Co., as agents for the defendant, whereby Bayly and Co. agreed to sell affd deliver to plaintiffs within a reasonable time defendant’s hvhdl-plip at thefprice of 9id on trucks at Huiroa.” “Mr Spence, for the defence, ap- ' plies. for a non-suit upon the grpund that Bayly and Co. were never appointed agents for defendant. (2) That Bayly; was himself trying to buy from defendant, ahd therefore could not bind defendant to sell to plaintiff unless (Bayly proved he was appointed agent for defendant. “It is not denied that the letter of November 17, from ,Bayly and Co. to plaintiffs and the telegram of November 19 from Bayly and Co. to defendant' and otheij correspondence would be a contract fj»r sale if Bayly is agent for defendant, ft’ 1 rr.ffUayly’s eyMence proves that he and Dunlop (his employee) drove to defendant’s' pi ape on November 17 to. defenda|| would sell his woolclip, and askqdijdefendant if he would take.Sd. Fiuljly .defendant said he wo’uld' take 9 fc|j 'Bayly' then 'Mid he 1 epuki - not bttj . ihal A&y. * BajW then wrote plaint if fokHVHohr he says’he Maintiffs, after correspondence -witl feayly as to the class of wool offereG|| wired Bayly to accept at: 9Jd. ■ Bayly anti Co. then wired defendant:. 4 ‘We confirm sale your Wool nine-half on trucks Tariki and Huiroa,” Defendant never replied. “Bayly admits that he only,called on defendant to see if he would sell 9id. There is no evidehce that ffe-

fendant placed tthrnvcraHunder'-.offer tb Bayly and *Co. at or placed it i* Bayly’s hands to sell for him at that price. The rnattdi;'was> therefore at an end as far as fhd €Ke'defendant, were conJbernojL. '3 i'iT©t Bayly apparently presuming wQuld be still sell at 9id, wool-clip 1 'fll-'aCfendiiit’s to the' plaintiffs, for whom Bayly was agent, and their wired-defendant he ha|l done so. ' , *‘Dunlop says he saw defendant in Stratford, he thinks early in December, and had a few minutes conversation in reference to the wool, but he cannot remember what was said. “Defendant says he saw Dunlop in Stratford on November 17, not December, and asked him if Bayly could give him 9}d, and he replied not for a while. Defendant says lie then went immediately to the bank and sent his wool Home through them, and on leaving t‘he bank again, saw Dunlop in the street and told him what he had done. _ v. “Bayly says Dunlop did not tell him about the conversation he had with defendant. “tfhe most the evidence proves is that defendant agreed to trfke 9£d, and Bayly said he could not give it then, but there is an entire absence of evidence of Bayly- being appointed agent for defendant or leaving his wool under offer to him. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs (Davidson and Co.), can have no claim against the defendant, whatever their claim njay be against Bayly and Co. Plaintiffs are therefore ,non-suited, with "osts, £8 135.” ,