Francis v Lyon [1907] HCA 12

— 4 C.LR.J OF AUSTRALIA, 1023

means of knowledge to the public as to enable anyone of ordinary competence to reproduce the article." I accept this finding as correct, and I regard it as sufficient to justify the judgment for the defendant, if knowledge or means of knowledge should be treated as an element in the defence of prior user.

AUSTRALASIA Lap.

Appeal allowed.

Higgins J.

Solicitor, for appellant, C. J. Macfarlane, Melbourne. Solicitors, for respondents, Hodgson «& Finlayson, Melbourne.

B. L. (HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.] CHARLES DECIMUS FRANCIS . 3 . APPELLANT; PLAINTIFE, AND JOHN LYON. i : : ' : . RESPONDENT. DEFENDANT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF + QUEENSLAND.

Contract of sale—Sale of sheep—Right of purchaser to refuse to accept sheep H.C. or A. " unfit to travel" —Refusal to accept others which were fit to travel—Provisional 1907.

: refusal — Measure of damages — Repudiation by vendor — Sale of Goods Act ae (Q.) 1896 (60 Vict. No. 6), secs. 14 (2), 39, 52. BRISBANE, April 26, 29,

By a contract for the sale of a specific flock of sheep of a specified number at 39 ; May, 4. 'a certain price per head of those delivered and accepted, it was provided that the sheep should be delivered at a place between 200 and 300 miles from beset where the sheep then were, and to which the sheep would have to travel on Misins J. foot, and that the purchaser should have the option of rejecting all sheep unfit to travel. By the law of Queensland travelling sheep are required to travel at the rate of six miles per day. 'The destination of the sheep was unknown to the vendor, but it was within the contemplation of the parties

H.C. or A.

1907. =

Francis v Lyon.

HIGH COURT

that they would have to travel a considerable distance. The purchaser a deposit of £250. In an action by the purchaser for return of the d