THE COURTS. RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume V, Issue 229, 20 June 1872, Page 7

THE COURTS. RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before Vincent Pyke, Esq., li.M.) Thuksday, 13th June. Curregh v. Harris. — This was an action brought to recover £14 for flour sold and delivered. The plaintiff produce'!, an order dated 28th March last, signed by the plaintiff and endorsed, with a receipt by one Ellis, the carter who roodvea the flour. The defence set up was th.it tho flour was purchased from one Lawson, and that the plaintiff was only, the custodian of tho flour for Lawson. It appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff had, about a year ago, purchased and paid, for a quantity of flour from Lawson ; and afterwards, finding itof au inferior qnalit}', he negotiated with Lawson for a re-sale, and Lawson agreed to purchase it back again at the same price for which he had sold it, giving acceptances monthly for so much as he might remove. The whole was to be removed by the 16th .January, and a final acceptance given ; but Lawson failed to fulfil his part of the contract, and the plaintiff then considered it at an end, and endeavoured to sell the retnaindcr of the flour himself. About a week previous to the 28th March, the defendant negotiated with the pl.iintilf for the purchase of some of the flour, and asked plaintiff whether he would take Lawson's acceptance for the amount. Plaintiff then said he would have nothing to do with Lawson, but would sell .the defendant the flour. The defendant afterwards sent the order before mentioned, and the flour was delivered in the plaintiff's absence, no stipulation being made about price. Plaintiff contended that under the circumstances, flour having become scarce in the meantime, he was entitled to the market price at the time of sale. It was proved that Lawson had since purchased all the remainder of the flour, and had settled with the plaintiff for the whole, except the parcel sold to defendaut. His / Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff for £10, being the price 1 agreed to be paid by Lawson, as he considered the flour was proved to be inferior in quality, and declined to award costs. Mr. Mouat for plaintiff ; Mr. M'Coy for defendant.