A BAD SPECULATION.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2380, 9 July 1892, Page 3

A BAD SPECULATION.

At the Resident Magistrate's Court, Timaru, on Wednesday last, the case of W. Carston v Canterbury Fanners Cooperative Association, claim £2Gs 13s 3d, a claim for loss sustained through defendants not carrying out plaintiff's instructions with regard to a shipment of potatoes, was heard. Mr C. Perry (for Mr Raymond) appeared for plaintiff, Mr White for defendants. Mr Perry stated the case for the plaintiff. The plaintiff' employed defendants as his agents to ship to and sell potatoes at Sydney. He placed a reserve price on them, and defendants sold at a price lower than this reserve, with the result that plaintiff was a loser ; the suit was to recover damages from defendants for selling contrary to instructions; as, if the potatoes had been held a little longer, the reserve prices, and probably more, would have been obtained for them. Some time in April, Mr Carston saw Mr Turnbull, defendants' shipping clerk, and arranged with him to ship 50 tons of potatoes in the s.s. Arclle to Sydney. The potatoes Avere shipped on the Gth May. When the potatoes were sent in, he wrote to MiiTurnbull a letter advising the consignments, adding, " If there is not suiUcient space for tho whole, please keep back balance of [a certain brand J as the sample is not so good. I have 150 tons to dispose of, and 1 shall be glad to hear from you as to advice in the way of shipping. I shall not be prepared to sell potatoes at less than £3 a ton." (The last sentence was written in the margin.) On the 24th May he wrote to defendants asking if they had any word about the potatoes and whether they arrived in sound condition. " If not sound I think I will let them go if I can get anything like £2 10s." Defendants' manager replied the same day, that no word had been received from Sydney, and that he could not recommend a market for the balance. " At present Sydney <<uotations are £2 to £2 ss. If you care to ship we can secure space in the Ardle." On the 18th June plaintiff wrote to the manager that he had received advice of tho sale of another shipment; that he supposed the delay was through having the reserve on. " Kindly wire your agent that if he can get 50s tq take it." Plaintiff called, at defendant's office some timo after and found from tho returns that the potatoes j had been sold at loss than tho rosoi'v - upn tHpm, IMeudunts w^ T - - put on tho Uivxm *•* *'' - jied tu aettle I plaut.i |V " - " iie account sales, but 1 . was not willing to do that as it would mean a loss to him, and he now claimed from defendants the difference between what tho potatoes actually fetched in Sydney and the reserve of £3 10a placed upon them. The claim was justified, its it would be shown that had

the plaintiffs instructions been carried our, and the potatoes held a little longer, the potatoes would have realised the reserve and probably more, instead of 39s lOd and 455, the prices obtained. The plaintiff gave evidence in support of his counsel's statement, and stated that when he went to get a settlement he was offered a cheque for £3 odd, which he refused to take. He based his claim on the reduced reserve of £2 10s a ton. The evidence of defendants' manager, Mr Inglis, and Mr Turnbull, shipping clerk, was to the effect that they finderstood the reserve to refer to the 150 tons plaintiff had to dispose of. They would not have taken the potatoes if they had known there was a reserve price put uf on them. His Worship said it was evidently unusual for merchants shipping perishable goods to place a reserve price upon them; they were landed and sold at whatever the market price happened to be. He concluded that it was not contemplated there should be a reserve, and judgment would be for defendants. Mr Perry asked for a nonsuit, and a nonsuit was recorded, with costs for defendants, 13s, and solicitor's fee, £2 2s.