too 1-iige. After stacking and In-fur thatching there were abont six days' i.iin wliicli must h»vn damaged thr gniin if prccit'tions wero not taken. — .John Chi mera held the same opinion with re • it i < i !>' Scoles 1 crop of barley. He smw it fhr<«.-h.-d. and would not have expected to get mo.e than third-class pric« for it. The greater pm of the barley in the Gorge stor« wa- i , very bad condition.— Edward Burro w^ gave evidence of hearing Davis refuse to a.-capt delivery of the barley as it was no g.M.d to him. — I>. McKenzie deposed that he lia-.l seen the barley in question, and prcdiu-fd a sumple of it. He thought it was ffrj poor stuff. — Thomas Whitaker, CJ. M Starkey, and S. H. Moreton gave ovidri:- c to .show that Davis was in Invcr cargill on sth, Gth, and 7th July for tlu purpose of contradicting the evidence of plaintiffs servants at the former heari&g to the effeci that Davis took delivery of barley from them at the Gorge store on these days. This closed the euse for tho defenic. His Honor having stated the points at issue gave judgment for defendant with costs, on the grounds that there was no agreement; that the purchase was an ontiiv one; that it was clear that defendant by giving a receipt for two loads of the bark- v, did not bind himself to tak-j the whole of it. Thrt weight of evidence also went to show that thfc grain was not of good quality. The Court then adjourned till to-day at 11 a.m. ___________

THE REVISED NEW TESTAMENT.
