Daily Witness, 9 Jan 1882
The Alleged Breach of Contract
By a regrettable error the name of Mr. JP Cuddy was misplaced for that of Mr. Haasfield in an item in Saturday’s issue, concerning the case of Baxter vs Cuddy of M Hicks & Co. it was made to appear that the goods were purchased from the defendant, but we learn that Mr. Baxter had no transaction with JP Cuddy individually or with the firm of M Hicks & Co. The contract was solely between Haasfield and Baxter, Haasfield being in the United States at present and not Mr. Cuddy as stated by error. The plaintiff takes suit for the delivery of the goods on Messrs. M Hicks & Co refusing without an order from the London House of the consignee Messrs. Haasfield Bros and the payment of all charges on the goods.
(To the Editor of the Witness)
Sir – In this Saturday’s issue of your paper there is an article relating to an action taken by Messrs Baxter bros against JP Cuddy of this city. From this article it would appear that Mr. Cuddy was the person who had sold the goods to Baxter Bros and was refusing to carry out his contract. In justice to Mr. Cuddy and M Hicks & Co, I desire to give a denial to this statement. The contract was with neither Mr. Cuddy nor M Hicks & Co, but with HS Haasfield himself personally. The goods were consigned to M Hicks & Co by Haasfield Bros of London and sold by a member of this firm to Baxter Bros, who now claims them, not from Hicks & Co, but from Haasfield Bros. The action taken by me against M Hicks & Co for Baxter Bros was merely to restrain them from paying any money or delivering the unsold goods to Haasfield Bros. M Hicks & Co have always been ready to pay over all monies due from the sale to the rightful owner.
Yours Truly, JN Greenshields.