Welden v Smith [1924] UKPCHCA 1

34 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA 29

(PRIVY COUNCIL.)

WELDEN é > : Ss S ss 3 . APPELLANT ; PLarntirr, AND STATUS 9 tne - i . : c i . ReEsPoNvENT.

Noman Derenpant,

ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT.

Negligence—Wheat pool scheme—Statutory authority—Contractual relation—Wheat — Parvy delivered to Government for sale—Damage to wheat through negligence of Govern. Counci..." ment—Duty towards owner of wheat to take care of all wheat in pool—Words of indemnity—Wheat Harvest (1915-1916) Act 1915 (S.A.) (No. 1229), secs. 3, 4, 5, Schedule—Wheat Harvest (1915-1916) Act Amendment Act 1916 (S.A.) (No. 1251), secs. 3, 6—Wheat Harvest (1915-1916) Act Further Amendment Act 1919 (S.A.) (No. 1368), sec. 3.

'The appellant, who had delivered his 1916-17 wheat to the Government of South Australia for sale on his behalf pursuant to the Wheat Harvest (1915-1916) 'Act 1915 (S.A.), a8 amended by the Wheat Harvest (1915-1916) Act Amendment 'Act 1916 (S.A.), and had signed an agreement in the form set out in the Schedule to the Act of 1915, instituted proceedings against the Government by a petition alleging that a large number of other owners of wheat as well as himself had delivered their wheat to the Government for sale on their behalf, and that the Government by its agents and servants negligently and without reasonable or proper care or protection kept, and carelessly and negligently omitted to keep, large quantities of the wheat so delivered to it, whereby large quantities of the wheat were damaged and the aggregate of the returns for wheat sold was less than it otherwise would have been. The claim was substantially that the appellant was entitled to compensation in respect of the negligence alleged. 'There was no allegation that the appellant's own wheat was damaged, or that

* Present—Viscount Cave L.C., Viscount Haldane, Lord Sumner, Lord Wren- bury and Sir Charles Darling.