DISTRICT COURT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 9096, 23 May 1908, Page 5

DISTRICT COURT.

YESTERDAY'S BUSINESS. A SHEEP TRANSACTION. The District Court sat yesterday morning, when a claim was heard in which Alex. Reside, stock dealei, sued John Gillies, farmer, of Whangaimoana, for £472 10s (less £362 16s 3d, present value) amount of a line of sheep purchased on defendant's behalf, and which he refused to take delivery of, or in the alteinative the sum of £236 5s depreciation and cose of keep of sheep to date of hearing of the case. Mr C. A. Pownall appeared for plaintiff and Mr J. W. Card (Featherston) for defendant. The case was heard before a jury of four, consisting of Cameron (foreman), W. J- Leach, G. A. Dawson and F. R. Dodson. Mr Pownall, in outlining the care, said defendant asked plaintiff to purchase a line of ewes from Mr George Moore, of Eparaima. The number purchased was 675, the price paid being 14s per head. The price of stock had since declined, and on this ground counsel contended defendant now wished to repudiate the contract. A letter plaintiff believed he received authorising the sale eculd upfjprtunately not befound, but a verbal contract could be established,. Befendjant had previously, buughft a line of the same sheep, a sjtCTflg point in plaintiff's favour. Alexander Reside,, plaintiff, deposed that he purchased a line of ewes from Mr George Moore, of Eparaima. In November last defendant spoke to witness and asked him to purchase another line of Mcore*s sheep, meaning thereby the cast ewes for the season. Witness thought he had a letter confirming hia verbal statement, but could not produce it. On 30th December witness wrote to G. Moore offering to take all his culled ewes, providing they were soundmouthed cheep. Witness next saw Mr G ; trie3 at Mas.terton Show, where the latter said that if witness had bought Moore's ewes he would take them. Witness replied that he would let him kr.ow on witness returning to his office ai\s looking up the letter book. Next} day witness wrote 10 say they w§r§ net PTC?.* • ed, «A m. again wrote defendant telling him that j was in error in stating that the 3heep were not purchased from Moore, and setting out details of an agrrc.-ncst with Moore. Corresfollowed between plaintiff and defendant, the former maintaining that he certainly purchased the sheep for defendant, and the latter stating that he did r.ot instruct plaintiff to purchase the sheep for him, ard asking witness to get Moore to take the sheep back. Witness reiterated that he believed he [got a written instruction from de;isndant but was not positive, H r „ IWm c::*.that defer.- ; verbally instructed him. Wititibss' took delivery of the sheep jabdu't? March 7th, and defendant in jretuir, l vefused to take delivery. Ms 1 ffcrvor asked Mr Car 4 ., at this stage/ if the damages set up and d'eprc' ; "iitio!s were considered fair. Mr CaYcSf agreed that they were, but denied any liability in the first intsance.

Witness, under cross-examination, stated that he bought for the Gear Company, and also privately. Ho did not know that defendant only had 400 acres. Defendant", told witness to get the same class of ewes as he got for defendant on a p'evious occasion. Witness denied that the market wa« falling whsn he purchased, which was early in December. If defendant said he did not write a letter instructing witness to purchase the sheep witness would not den£ it. F. C. Lewis, stock agent, in the employ of Abraham and Williams, said it waa sometimes customary to take instructions as paintiff had done. Mr Pownall wished to examine witness further on questions of practice among buyers, but His Honor considered it would hardly be proper. George Moore, farmer, of Eparaima, deposed to plaintiff purchasing a line of sheep at 14s per head. Reside previously purchased a line of 900 from witness. Reside selected the oesfc of the cast ewes this year—about 675 out of thu 1,200. on the farm. T. W. McKenzie, stock buyer and dealer for the Wellington Meat Export Company, and also for himself, said he would understand the instruction said to be given to plaintiff as an order to buy the cast ewes. Witness might on occasions let a few weeks pass before he could conveniently notify a client that a sale had been made on his behalf. W. Cooper aiso gave evidence on similar lines. This closed plaintiff's case. Mr Card, in opening, the case for the defence, said the jury would find that their chief duty lay in deciding as to whether the contract of principal and agent had been established between defendant and plaintiff. Repeating the evidence on this point counsel said that this was the first transaction in which the parties were concerned, and he dwelt on the unbusinesslike method of plaintiff in not notifying defendant of the purchase until two months later. Counsel contended that this was a vital point, as showing whether it was probable a contract had been made. John Gilliea, defendant, said he asked plaintiff to get the refusal of Moore's ewes. He did not authorise plaintiff to buy,.nor write a letter to him to do so. At the Masterton Show witness asked plaintiff if he had done anything about the ewes. Plaintiff replia:! that he had not, and witness then told plaintiff not to bother further. By Mr Pownall: Witness bought a previous" line of Moore's ewes at auction, but did not know they were sold on account of Reside. There were about 500 in the line, hj» thought. He would not swear there were not 800. He did iut know whether plaintiff had ever been on witness' property. Witness admitted ho ought to have limited the number of ewes to be purchased wheti the question of a refusal was discussed. Witness said that he did not purchase a single ewe at the Masterton Show, leaving it to plaintiff to get the refusal of Moore's sheep. The price was not left to plaintiff. A month ago witness purchased 100 sheep, being all he had bought

since tha date of the sale of Moore's sheep. This was the only witness. Counsel then addressed the jury, and His Honour summed up. It was agreed that the issue to submit to the jury should be—did plainiff receive authority to buy the sheep? If this were established the damage would be as claimed, £236 5s subject to any questions of law. The jury retired at 1.45, returning at 1 o'clock with a verdict for the plaintiff, on the issue submitted. Mr Pownall moved for judgment for the amount claimed. Mr Card then argued questions of law as to the measure of damage, but His Honour held that counsel's contentions were not maintainable. Judgment was given as claimed in the alternative—namely, for £236 ss. Costs amounted to £2l 63 3d.