OVERALL McRAY LIMITED V. MALLICK 33/1925

{ ie

COLE Oe APO Tey

red | FE ALP PO

Budguent.

McCRAY La v__ MALLICK.

Knox C.J.

The respondent hired a boring plant from the appellant

for a period of 6 months from the 15th May the hire of the plant during that pericd,

1g2h respondent continued to use the plant having been made as to payment for its use pellant sued for money payable for hire of

enber 1924 relyang on an implied agreenent

1924, and paid £250 for After the 15th November without any yekoon dete enent after that date. The op the plant after the 15th Nov-

i

to pay for its use. The res-

pondent resisted this claim mainly on the ground that cne Miller who

was alleged to be the authorized agent of

that if the bore were not finished by the

the appellant had promised

15th November the respondent

ale

should have the use of the pHant free of charge after that date until

a

2, : oo i

the bore was finished, The jury returned a verdict for the appellant

for £64-5-9. On al by the present respondent to the Full Court

of the Supreme Court the verdict wae set aside and judgnent enteredn

fer the respondent on the ground that there vas no evidence to support

* cf Fa frp the finding. From this order this app

sl is brought by special leave.

In my opinion the ap, eal should be allowed. It is clear from the

verdict that the jury took the view either that the promised alleg to have deen given by Millar was not in fact given or that Millar had no authority from the appellant to give such 4 promiee, It was clearly open to the jury on the evidence to take either view and it would not be surprising if they regarded the document put forward in

support ofthis part of the case with soné suspicion. This line of

3°

defonce failing, the position was that the respondent had paid £250 for the use of the pant from the 15th May 192 till the 15th Noveu-

ber 1924 and that he continued to use the plant after the expiration