Callow J:

The facts and arguments appear sufficiently from the Judgment.

The claim is

(a) for the recovery of the sum of $1,820 and costs;

(b) for an order that the defendants do retrieve the 24 Kudis of unsatisfactory goods; and/or

(c) any other or further order as this Hon'ble Court may think fit.

The parties' versions of the transaction are diametrically opposed, so my first duty is to decide which to believe.The plaintiff called one witness besides himself, and the defendant two. I paid close attention to the evidence and demeanour of all and I accept the version of the plaintiff.The plaintiff's witness Phua Chin Teik appeared to me the most independent witness I heard and his evidence supported that of the plaintiff.The defendant's witnesses were both his employees, and Lim Sek Kee (3 DW) I did not favour.

I visited the premises of the defendant in the company of Counsel and so acquainted myself with the features of the shop.

The facts I find are that the plaintiff journeyed from Kota Bahru to buy Kedah sarongs in Alor Star.He had first to purchase the cloth and then get it pattern printed, in consequence he entered the plaintiff's shop and his requirements were discussed.This was on 22 May 1949.

As a result the defendant recommended him to Phua Chin Teik (second witness) and the plaintiff after contacting the printer-cum-dyer (the patterns are coloured) returned with him to the plaintiff.

There is evidence by Lim Kheah Swee (2 DW) that this order proffered by the plaintiff was unusually large and it seems a fair inference that it would ensure the personal attention of the defendant proprietor, indeed the whole order could not be supplied from stock, 180 pieces (or Kayu) were sought but the defendant had only 100 on hand at the moment, but being enterprising he offered to procure the balance of the 80 pieces from Penang and this he did for sale the next day.

The business was transacted at a small table in the shop which I saw and is obviously used for such purposes.The plaintiff paid $1,200 for the cloth, plus $1,050 for printing and $30 for rail freight from Alor Star to Kota Bahru.The salesman was Lim Sek Kee (3 DW) but throughout the defendant was present and taking his proper place as the shop proprietor.

To conclude the transaction on 22 May 1949, the agreement Exh. "A" was drawn up at the dictation of the defendant.The results of this first transaction proved satisfactory; the sarongs were duly printed, despatched and accepted by the plaintiff; they form no part of the claim in this action.

It is the transactions on the following day 23 May 1949 which are the subject of the claim.The plaintiff returned to the defendant's shop and the defendant produced the balance of the order, 80 pieces.He paid $960 for the cloth, $840 for the cost of printing and $20 rail freight, totalling $1,820 the amount shown in item (1) of the plaint.

I am satisfied that this business on 23 May 1949 was done by the plaintiff with the defendant.The salesman Lim Sek Kee was present but in a subordinate capacity.The same arrangements were made for printing by Phua Chin Teik; he was to deliver the printed sarongs to the defendant at his shop and there receive payment if the work was approved, the printed articles were then to be forwarded by the defendant to the plaintiff at Kota Bahru.

Now it is obvious that the second consignment consisting of sarongs printed from the 80 pieces are not comparable with the first consignment; neither the printing nor the dyes are as good.Therefore early in August 1949, the plaintiff travelled from Kota Bahru to complain to the defendant.At first the defendant maintained that the second consignment was up to sample and said it had been printed as before by Phua Chin Teik.

Thus the plaintiff contacted Phua Chin Teik and it transpired that earlier the same morning the defendant had spoken with Phua Chin Teik and urged him to say that he had printed the whole of the second consignment.In fact, of the second