MISSING STOCK

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 6, Issue 53, 5 March 1943, Page 5

MISSING STOCK

- BILL OF SALE DISPUTE SLOCAL FARMER NON-SUnTED One of those intensely techni- ■ cal cases in which the points under dispute are only relieved "by the witty exchanges of counsel of either party and the dry rejoinders from, the bench was heard before Mr E. L. Walton. S.M., in the Whakatane Magistrate's Court last Tuesday. The case concerned a claim by "Thomas Wray (Mr B. ,S. Barry) against Mr R. Fermah (Mr R.. CooBey) for dairy stock which it was alleged were illegally sold to him br -a third party Jensen, an erstwhile sflaremilker on Wray's farm at Piko•"waL The case traversed an intricate course of evidence by the plaintiff who sought to establish his claim to stock which had been traced to Fermah's property and which could be 'identified by plaintiff's earmark. Quotations from the legislation concerning Bills of Sale were indulged in by counsel for both sides during which plaintiff was subjected 'to severe cross examination by Mr 'Cooney. Mr Barry made it quite clear that ' the plaintiff did, riot seek to cast =any aspersions on Fermah who it ""was agreed was merely the unfortunate victim of what he had regarded as a legitimate sale. Evi- • dence in support of plaintiff was -given by Charles Edwin Conn a .neighbour. Mr Cooney then claimed that the case for plaintiff's ownership had not been proved. After considerable interchange with Mr Barry xon the point, the Magistrate said that he had found by way of evidence that plaintiff had been forced to rely upon \he fact that 20 yearling heifers which had been sold bore his earmark, and that therefore the defendant had been guilty pf committing the act set out in the statement of claim. Bearing always in mind the regular visits of what seemed, to him (the . Magistrate) to be a fairly close control or suspension, lie found he could not accept, what he said, altogether on face value. He held some doubt -about the deal, and had now been asked to hold that a prima face case had been made. The facts appeared to be that plaintiff saw certain stock which he thought were his; "enquired of defendant where he had purchased them, and was informed that they were sold by Jensen's son. He had made further enquiries and had received a solicitor's letter. The remarkable feature had been that plaintiff knew all about the dealing' =-and exchanging of. calves by sen and also knew of the extraordinary number of calves on the farm. Bearing all this in mind,, the Magistrate said that he concluded; that plaintiff hact not made out a prima face case and he therefore acceded '-to defendant's request # for a nonsuit. On Mr Barry's application- security was fixed for an appeal. I