(DAIRYMEN'S DIFFERENCES

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 213, 3 June 1919, Page 3

(DAIRYMEN'S DIFFERENCES

CASE IN SUPREME COTJRT.. Hi 9 Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and a jury of four yesterday heard a dispute between two dairy farmers.

The dispute was between Henry Farnan, of Whitoman's Valley, Lower Hutt, and John Williamson, of Trentham, Upper Hutt. Tho former claimed ,£326 damages for alleged breaches of nil agreement. Mr. P. J. O'Kegan appeared for the plaintiff, and Air. 13. K. Kirkcaldio for the defendant. Mr. James M'Lellan wa3 foreman of i'Jifl iu.Vy. In Aujjust, 1918, the plaintiff agreed to lease from the defendant for a'term of five years at a rental-of .£l5O per annuls, inclusive of the rent on the bailment of eleven cows, and eight heifers. Tho plaintiff claimcd that the had com-, mitted certain broaches of Die lease and bailment in that the defendant Represented that all the cows and heifers included ill the bailment would calve in time lor the ensuing; dairying season. That such representation was a material one,_ and was a condition precedent to the agreement. In fact, six cows failed to calvo within the time so represented. That the defendant agreed to lease 11 cows and 8 heifers, but lie failed to supply two cows, That it was agreed that a certain boundary fence was to be erected by the defendant, who, however, failed to provide the material necessary for the erection of the fence; in consequence, certain of the defendant'sstock trespassed on the leased land, causing damage thereto by eating off the feed. Plaintiff therefore' claimed special damages totalling M 7& and general damages ,£SO; total,

For the defence it was stated that it was agreed to,lease to the plaintiff 11 cows and 8 lienors, but subsequent to' the execution of the agreement it was verbally agreed that the plaintiff should have 0 coirs and 10 heifer.-;, instead cf 11 cows nml 8 heifers. The defendant denied that he had committed any breach or breaches of the lease orj bailment.

On the conclusion of the evidence for the plaintiff His Honour ruled that the only points to lie mot by the defence were the alleged short; delivery of two cows and the question of trespass of defendant's stock on the land leased to the plaintiff. In addressing the jury, His Honour said the matter was narrowed down to one question, and that was whether the plaintiff received 19 cattle or a less number. Ho reviewed the evidence at 6ome length and remarked on the fact that the plaintiff did not replace the alleged shortage by buying otlior cows and so getting the benefit of their supply of milk. However, at most, if plaintiff ivns entitled to anything it wn.s the value of two cows, assuming that they were short delivered, and such damage would 'be equal to ,£l2 pur head, or £24 io ajl. The decision of the Jury was that the plaintiff' had received only 17 head of 'cattle, and was therefore entitled to ,£24. The question ot costs was reserved,

"Buskin will rank as one of the two great intellectual forces in England in the nineteenth century, tho other 'being Charles Darwin," says Mr. J. A. Hobson. "Ruskin was an intellectual bombthrower in the worlds of art, literature, religion, politics, and, above all, in that of economics and social reconstruction."