LIABILITY OF MANURE VENDORS.

Wairoa Bell, Volume V, Issue 214, 8 September 1893, Page 7

LIABILITY OF MANURE VENDORS.

A decision of interest to manure vendors and the farming community was given by Dr. J. Giles yesterday afternoon at the R.M. Court. W. S. Laurie summoned Henry Alley to show cause why he should not pay £l3 17s 6d alleged to he due for manure supplied. Mr C. Buddie appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr T„ Cotter for the defence.

It was admitted by the defendant that the manure had been received, but he contended that as its effect was nil, the article was manifestly bad, and should not be paid for. Evidence was given by the plaintiff that the manure wxs the same as that supplied to other customers from whom no complaints had been received. The defendant deposed that the manure had been properly applied and that the results were nil, An amount of correspondence was read and put in. Mr Cotter then addressed the Court, and pointed out that the manure was ordered for grass, and that the plaintiff was practically a manufacturer of manure. He argued that when such manure was properly applied and yet gave no results, it was evident the fertiliser was valueless, and, consequently, defendant should not be called upon to pay for it. Mr Cotter also raised some tecbnial points. Mr Buddie, in reply, pointed out that plaintiff performed his contract by sending two of the best manures. If the crop did not succeed, be contended that Mr Alley could not practically fall back and claim damages. Dr. Giles disposed of the technical objections by a few brief remarks. With regard to the merits of the case, His Worship said he could quite see the difficulty of putting the vendor entirely at the mercy of the purchaser, and if that was the whole case, be would probably say that the purchaser would have to pay for the manure. But in the present instance the purchaser gave the seller notice, and asked him to send a man to inspect the crop, offering to pay all expenses. There must have been some reason for bis action, and also for the effects of the manure being nil. It seemed to have been proved that the season and the weather were fairly favorable. He could not see why the inspection should not have been made. Evidently, the manure did not answer the purpose for which it was purchased. Judgment was given for the defendant.