No corrections yet
THURSDAY, APRIL 7. [Before Messrs. J.W. Macdonald, S.M., E. Stirling. J.P., FULL JURISDICTION (CIVIL.) DEFENDED CAUSES.
HILL V. CORIN.-Mr. Ingleby appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Bruce for the defendant This was a claim for £71 158., balance of money alleged to be d[?]e for a building erected at Fullarton by the plaintiff for
he defendant. It appeared that the original price agreed uDonforthe building was £190; that £11 Us. was added to this for extras, making a total, of £201 Kg. From this was deducted £130, for which credit had been Riven, lius reducing the amount to the earn claimed. A Bet off of £17 I2g 6d. was pleaded and proved, the sum of £20 it was shown and admitted was not yet due. The earn of £1178. 6d. was paid into Court, .and £3 was allowed for defective work manship. These amounts reduced the gum claimed to £c, for which the Court gave judgment Trustee of Bean v. Ejstxev.—This was an action for £1168, rent doe, and for an order to recover the tenement occnoied by the defendant. The Court ordered the rent to be paid, and told Keyley he most turn out of the boose before Vt o'clock on Monday next. (Before Messrs. J. W. Macdouald, S.M., Keales, and A. 1 Scott, J.P.'aj Peacock & Son v. Jenkins.—Action for £so, for deceit alleged to be exercised in the sale of 21 bales of wool by the defendant to the plaintiffs, commission agents. The Attorney-General appeared for tnejplaintins, and Mr. Ingleby for the defendant. The Attorney-General in opening the ease aald he sued on the question of deceit, and not on that of warranty. Having described the (acts of the case, he called the follow ing evidence: — Joseph Peacock said—l am one of the plaintiffii in this action. On the sth February the defendant met me under the Exchange and asked if I was a purchaser of wooL I said yes, and be asked me to come <vith him. I got into a trap with him. and he took me wich him to the back ;of tae Free masons' Tavern, where I saw two dreys containing 20 or 21 bales ot wool. I took oat a handful here and there, which is the ordinary usage of sampling adopted by the trade. We talked about the price, and I made an offer for the wool. Mr. enkins said he would submit the price to his principal and let me know. Did not see Mr. Jenkins again till I returned to my office in the afternoon, when the wool was standing in my yard. The next day Mr. Jenkins brought down tue account, which being examined in the usual way I gave him a cheque for the amount—£3o6 is. Sd. Mr. Jenkins checked the weights in tbe afternoon by our scales; the wool was unloaded in his presence. The bales were marked on the end "A. McD." Mr. Jenkins showed me an invoice. During the time the wool was being weighed Ir Jenkins was aaked to whom it belonged, and be said in a joking way "Oh. say it belongs to Archibald McDonald." Inferred from that that I had no busi ness to enquire. The day alter the wool was settled for my attention was called to tne remarK?ble patches which were on some of the bales. I had two or three of these patches ripped off, and I found these patches had been placed on to conceal various different brands to that on the outside. I did not snip the wool as I received it, which is our usual custom with washed wool, but I sent it to my yard in Bindmarsh and had it all unpacked. Isawit there. My attention was called to the disgraceful way in which the wool was packet I then thought it necessary to stop my men from doing anything more to the wool, and rode to town to see Mr. Jenkins. On February II I wrote to Mr. Jenkins asking him for the name of his principal or I should take proceedings against him. I saw Mr. Jenkins after that, and he said be would let me know during the course of the day. On the follow ing day Mr Jenkins called and left a message with his brother Henry, and said his principal refused to give up his name, bat that if I particularly objected to the bale of greasy wool he would take it back. £ then thought it neces sary to have some one to see the wool, and accordingly took Mr Glyde to Hindmarsh to make a survey of it. The result of the survey was so bad that I wrote a letter to Mr. Jenkins, saying that unless he gave up the name of the principal and made compensation 1 should submit the matter to our solicitors. I did not ask Mr. Jenkins to be present at the survey. If the wool bad been sent to London be purchasers there would have refused to have taken it; it would then be thrown back upon oar hands. The difference in the price would be at least 2d perlb. Clean pieces ot wool were packed ont?ide the bales of washed wool, the part of the bales where 1 got (be sample, and the centre was filled with inferior washed and greasy wooL The bale of greasy wool consisted of fleeces tied up in the usual way. On unrolling them we found the centre of each fleece was filled np with four or five lbs. of rubbishy locks. The bale of locks we don't complain of, as we expect rubbish when wo bny locks. By Mr. ingleby-I had full opportunity of sampling the wool in the usual way; but I could not cat a bale in two in the street. I had an opportunity of sampling from any part of any bale 1 liked. Mr. Jenkins did not dissuade me from exercising my own judgment to the fullest extent. All that took place was, that he showed me some wool; X sampled it, offered a price, and he took it. No part of the wool of any of the bales was valueless. The dirt was value less. In my judgment I gave the foil market value of the wooL I save 14d. for tbe washed wool, 9d. for the creasy, and Yd. for the locks. A portion of tbe so called washed wocl was not washed, and a portion was badly washed. About four fleeces in the bale were not washed. A bale contained from 40 to SO fleeces. I consider about 10 fleeces to the bale were badly washed. Tbe un washed wool would be worth 9d. instead of ltd., which I gave for it. Daring the course of the delivery Mr. Jenkins was asked, but declined to say where the wool came from. Geo. Bumall, foreman to Messrs. Peeoock & Son, at Hind marsh, gave similar evidence as to the peculiarity of the wool, and tbe suspicUras-lookinglpatches upon the bales. Under the patches the brand " Clanalpine " in a semicircle, with a number in the centre, occurred very frequently, but there were other brands. About half of the bale of greasy wool was composed of locks. Believed the washed and greasy wool were grown on different runs. Had been a feUmonger for the hist 14 or is years, and before that bad served his time in Bradford as a wool Btapler. Believed 2d. per Ib. too mnch bad been paid for the wooL The wool had been re packed. There was a great deal of dusUnga mixed with the wooL iiy Mr. Ingleby.—Sixteen out of the 21 bales'were opened. Did not open the rest because Mr. Peacock told us to stop when he discovered what the wool was like. For all he knew the other five might be quite right or worse. Tbe differ ence between greasy wool and locks is. t hat greasy wool is understood to be fleeces, while locks are the refuse swept op from the floor after the fleeces have been taken away. All the wool was equally bad. Tbe plan pursued in Bradford in baying wool, was to cut the bale nearest to you and pull out a sample. The custom was, not to open all the; wool upon a floor. J Bairons, woolsorter, for 10 years in Bradford and 12 years in this colony, stated that he was in the employ of Messrs. Peacock & Son. He confirmed the evidence as to the way in which the .wool was packed, its .bad quality, and the admixtures of different class wools in the same bale. The wool bad evidently been repacked. Lavington Glyde stated that be had served his appren ticeship to a worsted spinner, and had|had great experience in the wool trade. The way described by Mr. Peacock, of sampling wool was according to the usage of the wool trade here. Went on tbe 12th of February to Hindmarsh, to ex amine the wool there. Saw witness Burnell there, and Mr. Peacock was with him. Saw a greasy bale of wool marked "A. McD- No. 2L" The concealed mark was ** DXJS in a triangle, No. 13." Then saw three or four so called washed wool, which were opened in his presence. They were also marked "A- McD ;" the concealed mark when exposed on two of them was "Coonalpyn ;" tbe third one showed that the mark had been cut out altogether, as there was a hole of about 10 inches square. Saw about half a dozen fleeeffl ot the bale ot greasy wool unrolled, and they contained each of them about 2lbs. of looks of a different class of wooL The greasy wool came he should judge from tbe Buna, and the locks, which were worth half the price of the wool, came^ue should think from Lacepede Bay way. Should consider the bale through was worth 2d. per Ib. less than the price paid for it. In the three or four bales of so called washed wool he saw three or four greasy fleeces that had never been through the water at all. There were also seven or eight fleeces of very inferior qnaUty that had been very badly washed. IF he had bought the wool should have expected to make £1 per bale profit of it if it had been according to sample, bnt if he had bought the wool that he saw at Hindmarsh he should expect to make a loss of £1 per bale. Considered Mr. Peacock was entitled to £t per bale for sorting and repacking, and that it was fair to suppose there were 30lbs. of heavy badly washed wool in each bale at 2d. per lb_ £A iss. Then heconsidered it was reasonable to say there were i?lbs. of greasy wool in each bale at 94. per lb., """"r a difference or sd. perlb., which would make £5 188.3d. a bale. And then be put the loss on the bale of greasy wool at £2 25.. the total amount being £31 153. 94, By Mr. Ingleby—Considered the greasy locks worth only 4M. perlb. The custom of baying wool at London was that a little hole was cot in each bale, from which the intending purchasers were allowed to put in their hands and draw oat samples as long as they liked. If the wool purchased did not turn out according to the sample the purchaser was at liberty to reject it. He could call in two persons in the trade who would give a certificate that the wool was not accord ing to sample, and the broker in London would at once take back the wool. Henry Peacock corroborated the evidence already de tailed, and said in addition that Mr. Jenkins offered to take back the bale of greasy wool if they liked at the same price as they had paid foi it. Mr. Ingleby applied for a nonsuit on two grounds—first, because it had not been proved that the wool seen at Hind marsh was the same as that delivered by Mr. Jenkins to Messrs. Peacock &Son; and secondly, because it bad not been shown that Mr. Jenkins had deceived Mr. Peacock. He referred to the cases of Cornfoot v. Foot and Longtnead v. Halliday to show that unless the intention to deceive was proved an action of this kind could not lie. His learned friend ought to have gone upon the question of warranty; the account showing Jenkins had sold "19 bales of washed wool'Tproved the warranty; and if his friend had gone upon that and shown that the wool was not washed, or had been badly washed, be would then have bad some ground for damages. But instead of doing that his friend had intro duced the action for deceit, Hiinfcing he would get different damages then he would under the warranty. He maintained that unles? a falae representation on tbe part of Jenkins waa proved there must be a nonsuit That there was no deceitful representation was shown by bid client's allowing Mr. Peacock to crack and try before he bought—to sample the wool—to offer a price, which after submitting to his principal was accepted. There was no attempt to persuade Mr. Peacock to purchase the wool against his Judgment; be had full opportunity of testing it, and no deception what ever was exercised. He urged, therefore, that there should be a nonsuit. The Attorney-General replied, and referred to the case of Taylor v. Ashtoa to show that it was necessary to prove that "if a party makes an untrue representation to another for & fraudulent purpose, with the intent to induce the latter to do an act which he afterwards does to bis prejudice, an action on the case for deceit lies, and it is not necessary to show also that toe defendant knew the representation to be untrue." He further argued that Mr. Jenkins's actions showed that he was aware that something was wrong respecting tbe wool, because be offered to take back tbe bale of greasy wool, and because he refused to give op the name of bis principal. Mr. Ingleby having made some remarks in reply. His Honor said the Conrt must decline to grant a non suit because by refusing to disclose the name of bis prin cipal Mr. Jenkins had adopted tne acts of the principal. llr Ingleby asked that the Court's decision should be writtendown, and said he should not call any evidence. The Attorney-General then addressed the Court as to damages, and argned that £50 was not excessive. Mr Ingleby contended the damages should not be fixed according to the fanciful estimate of Mr. Glyde, bat accord ing to the evidence given as to the quantities that were not equal to sample. The Court gave judgment for SXt 16s. 9d. Mr Ingleby asked tbe Court to permit him to apply to the Supreme Court without entering security. His Honor eaid the Court would stay proceedings in the matter. Whittkcton v. Taylor—Action for £64, principal and interest dae on a bOl of exchange. The Attorney-General attended on behalf of the plaintiff, and Mr. Mann for the defendant It appeared that the bill waa originally for £57 10s., and that the £6 10s. was added for interest. Tbe claim was for work executed by Mr. WhiUngton as accountant, alleged by him to be done before and after Mr. Taylor's insolvency. Evidence for the defence showed that Mr. Taylor signed tbe bill under a threat while be was in gaoL and that tbe work in question was executed before the insolvency of the defendant. The Court felt satisfied that tbe work was done before tbe
insolvency, but granted a nonsuit, in order to enable tte defendant to sue for any small sums for work which had been done since the insolvency of Taylor. The Court sat till 6 o'clock.