ment ever made or existing between the parties which prescribed the defendant's duty as the plaintiff's agent. 4. The defendant denies that between the dates mentioned in the 4th paragraph of the statement of claim he received 1000 tons of coals. He did receive 955 tons; but, save as herein admitted, he denies the other allegations contained in the said 4th paragraph. 5. The defendant admits that after receiving the said 955 tons of coal he did sell the same to the T. Steamboat Company, at the rate of 148. 6d. per ton, and upon the terms of payment within three months from the date of delivery; but save as herein admitted, the defendant does not admit the 5th and 6th paragraphs of the statement of claim. defendant 6. The defendant says that the price of 14s. 6d. per ton and That the terms of three months' credit were the best terms that, exercised under the circumstances, he could obtain, and in selling the a sound said coals to the T. Steamboat Company, the defendant at the time exercised what was a sound judgment and wise discretion did. in the interest of the plaintiff. 7. After the delivery of the said coals, and before the time when payment thereof fell due, the T. Steamboat Company was, by order of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, ordered to be wound up, under the supervision of the Court. The defendant has sent in a claim against the estate of the said company for the price of the said coals; but he has not yet received the same, or any part thereof. 8. The defendant denies the allegations contained in the 8th paragraph of the statement of claim. discretion in what he And by way of set-off and counter-claim the defendant Set-off and says: counterclaim for 1. That it was agreed between the plaintiff and the de- commisfendant that the defendant should receive a commission of 6d. sion. per ton for all coal of the plaintiff's sold by his exertions in the town of C.; and the said agreement was in force during the whole of the year 1875. 2. During the said year the plaintiff consigned to the defendant, and the defendant sold on his behalf, in the town of C., over 4000 tons of coal. Particulars of the said sales have been delivered to the plaintiff. 3. The defendant has not received the said commission of That commission only became payable on cash remittances. Against agent for not ac counting. 6d. per ton on the said coals so sold by him, or any part thereof. The defendant claims : (1.) £102 and interest thereon up till judgment. (2.) Such further, &c. . Reply. 1. The plaintiff joins issue on the statement of defence, save in so far as it contains admissions. 2. The plaintiff says that it was a term of the agreement mentioned in the 1st paragraph of the counter-claim that the defendant should only receive the said commission of 6d. per ton when and after he had remitted to the plaintiff the price of the coals sold by him in respect of which he was to be entitled to the said commission. 3. The defendant has never remitted to the plaintiff the price of the coals mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of the counter-claim, and the plaintiff denies that any commission is due to him in respect of the same. Rejoinder. The defendant joins issue on the plaintiff's reply. Action against Agent for not accounting or paying for Goods consigned to him for Sale. 1. The plaintiffs are manufacturers of artificial manures, carrying on business at, in the county of 2. The defendants are commission agents, carrying on business in London. 3. In the early part of the year, the plaintiffs commenced, and down to the 187-, continued to consign to the defendants, as their agents, large quantities of their manure for sale, and the defendants sold the same, and received the price thereof, but have not accounted to the plaintiffs therefor, and have not paid the said price less their usual commission. 4. No express agreement has ever been entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants with respect to the terms of the defendants' employment as agents. The defendants have always charged the plaintiffs a commission at per cent. on all sales effected by them, which is the rate of commission ordi narily charged by del credere agents in the said trade. And Against del the defendants, in fact, always accounted to the plaintiffs for credere the price, whether they received the same from the purchasers not acor not. counting. 5. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants are liable to them as del credere agents, but if not so liable are, under the circumstances hereinafter mentioned, liable as ordinary agents. 6. On the, the plaintiffs consigned to the defendants for sale a large quantity of goods, including tons of tons 7. On or about the, the defendants sold of part of such goods, to one G. H., for £, at three months' credit, and delivered the same to him. 8. G. H. was not at that time in good credit, and was in insolvent circumstances; and the defendants might, by ordinary care and diligence, have ascertained the fact. 9. G. H. did not pay for the said goods, but before the expiration of the said three months for which credit had been given was adjudicated a bankrupt; and the plaintiffs have never received the said sum of £ or any part thereof. (2.) Such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require. Claim for Losses on Sales and Resales made for Defendant and for Commission. agent for agent for losses on and for commis 1. The plaintiffs carry on business as merchants in Hamburg. Claim by The defendant is a corn merchant at M., in the county of E. 2. Previously to the month of June, 1875, the defendant the market agreed with the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs should buy and sell grain on the Hamburg market on behalf of the defendant, sion. according to the instructions of the defendant, upon the terms, amongst other things, that the defendant should pay to the plaintiffs commission for purchase and re-sale at the rate of £2 per cent. upon the value of the wheat purchased and re-sold, and brokerage at the rate of 25 Rm/- per 1,000 cwt. of the said wheat, and should pay to the plaintiffs any losses which might result from the purchase and re-sale of the said wheat, and the expenses incurred by the plaintiffs in that behalf. Claim by an agent for losses on the market. 3. From the month of June to the month of November, 1875, the plaintiffs bought and sold various quantities of grain under the said agreement according to the instructions of the defendant in that behalf, and from time to time furnished the defendant with accounts showing the balance of profit or loss upon the several transactions under the said agreement. 4. In the said month of November, the losses on the said transactions exceeded the profits by a considerable sum, and there became and is due and owing from the defendant to the plaintiffs a sum of £320 in respect of losses, brokerage, commission, and expenses under the said agreement. 5. In the alternative the plaintiff says that in the month of November aforesaid, the plaintiff and defendant met, the accounts between the parties were gone through, a balance struck, and an account showing a sum of £320 to be due to the defendant, was stated. 6. The defendant has not paid the same or any part thereof. The plaintiffs claim £320, with interest until judgment. Agistment (a). Claim for loss of Cattle through Negligence and Misconduct of Agister. Negligence 1. The plaintiff and defendant are farmers, and in May, of agister. 1875, it was agreed between them that the defendant should agist seven head of cattle for the plaintiff for twenty weeks at Duty and liability of an agister. (a) The duty of an agister of cattle is to furnish them with suitable food and nourishment, and to give them a proper and reasonable amount of exercise and fresh air. He is also bound to take reasonable care of their safety. Thus, if he turn them on a common and afterwards take no heed of them so that they are lost, he is liable. (Coggs v. Bernard, 2 Raym. 909.) If a person places a horse in a pasture surrounded by rotten or defective fences, and the horse is lost, the agister is liable, but if it went away as much through its own vicious or ungovernable nature and got away through its own impatience of restraint as much as in consequence of the defects of the fences, the agister is not liable. (Addison on Contr., 7th ed. 653. See also Smith v. Cook, L. R. 1 Q. B. D. 79.) In the case of gratuitous bailments or agistment the agister is liable for gross neglect. (Rooth v. Wilson, 1 B. & Ald. 61, 62.) 50s. per head for the whole period, and that they should be Negligence kept in two fields of the defendant in company with five young of agister. bullocks belonging to the defendant, and that no other stock should be kept in those fields or with the said cattle of the plaintiff during the time of such agistment. 2. The plaintiff on the 13th of May delivered to the defendant the said cattle, namely, six heifers and one bullock upon the terms and for the purpose aforesaid, but the defendant did not keep the same according to the agreement in the two fields and with the five bullocks mentioned, but turned them over other fields in company with a general herd. The land so allotted to the whole herd was overstocked, thereby causing depreciation in value of the plaintiff's said cattle, and rendering them subject to attack from infectious diseases. 3. In August, 1875, some of the defendant's cattle upon the farm and lands on which the plaintiff's said cattle were being agisted, were attacked by the contagious disease called pleuropneumonia, and it thereupon became the defendant's duty to report to the local authorities the outbreak of such disease, and to adopt the measures prescribed by law for preventing the spread of the disease. The defendant wilfully neglected to make such report and to adopt such measures, and failed to act with reasonable care and ordinary diligence in preserving the plaintiff's said cattle from contagion, by reason of which defaults on the part of the defendant certain of the plaintiff's cattle were attacked by the disease, and destroyed on the ground of such infection, and the value of them was wholly lost to the plaintiff. 4. Before any of the plaintiff's said cattle were so infected, they ought to have been slaughtered by the defendant in the manner prescribed or permitted by law in such cases, and their carcases sold for food, but the defendant neglected to have the plaintiff's said cattle slaughtered while they were still fit for food, and while they would have realized a price nearly or quite equivalent to their full value. Owing to the defendant's said neglect two of the plaintiff's said cattle were afterwards attacked by the said disease, and were rendered valueless, the compensation allowed by law having been forfeited by reason of the defendant being convicted under the provisions of "The Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts." The remainder of the |