The plaintiff in thie case claims that he entered into an agreement with the defendant company la October 1910 by which said Company agreed to sell to him seventy cases of Black Italian ject-goods at a certain price aggregate ing Taels 13,140,00, and to deliver said to the. plaintiff within five weeks of the date of ssid agreement; that the said eum of Taels 13,140.00 was paid to Company for said goods in accordance with the terms of the agreement, but that the defendant Company has failed to four of ssid cases, and the plaintiff sues for damages in the sam of Taels 2,960.00.
At the rate per case alleged to have been agreed upon, the value of the fear case not delivered, plas profits claimed to have been lost thereon, was considerably lees than Taels 1,000.00.
It is obvious, therefore, that considerably more than one sued for is in tort by reason breach of contract, Tu fact it ed by couveel that the excess is claimed on account of alleged loss of credit sufforby his clients by reason of the fact that the defendant Company failed to deliver to him four cases of piece-goods ander the circumstances recited in the complaint, This claim of consequential dame, appears to the Court as having little rationsl geoned open which to rest, if were found that the evidence established the fact of agreement and the breach as allege The defendant Company doolee that agreement of any kind with the plaintiff.
The burden of proof rests upon the plsntif. Hle mast extabih he fat for tall end the defendant, by Bropondarst-10 agreement as alleged, between him-
ing proof, or Te is not claimed that the agreement was in writing. If any agreement was made, it was verbal.
The evidence shows that, at the time when the plaintiff claims that the agreement referred to was made, the defendant had an outstanding agreement with one Nuen Dab, piece-goods merchant for the sale and
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.