A WANDERING BULL

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4489, 8 November 1922, Page 3

A WANDERING BULL

NEIGHBOURS at variance.

bad fences make bad friends*

The Court was occupied for a considerable time on Monday last in hearing a claim made by E. R. Smith against J. H. J. Johnson for £3O 15s, being £l5 15s as the value, of a Jersey bull killed, by the defendant and £l5 as a claim fbr general damages. The defendant counter-claimed fpr the sum of £lOO for trespass, breaking fences and damage to his' herd, and general damage fpr fright* annoyance, apd danger, to defendant’s wife and family. Mr J. L. Hanna appeared for the plaintiff and Mr E, W. Pprritt fo.? the defendant.

E. R. Smith', the plaintiff, a farmer at Netherton, sworn, said that his property adjoined the property of defendant. He had been for three seasons in possession. In some places there were only two wires to the fences, and in others three and fdui wires. The willows had grow over the fence, and the posts were rotten and the wires rusted. There was nothing done to the fence since plaintiff had been there, and no improvements had been effected. The drain would be about four feet wide and about 18 inches deep. Cattle could get into the drain quite easily, and could go through the drain -to- drink. The fentfe as it was and the drain were not sufficient fp keep the cattle in. Defendant’s bull got in last year, but the fence was not repaired. He had not spoken to the defendant about the state of the fences. Plaintiff admitted having received notice that morning to fence his boundary. To Hix Worship plaintiff said that when getting in his cows he saw Johnson had the bull tied to a cabbage 1 tree by the horns and saw Johnson raise his hands and then the bull fell. Defendant sent a note to plaintiff to come and remove the bull or the matter would be put in the hands of the police. The bull was a thoroughly good one, (hom a tested good butter-fat cow. To Mr Poritt plaintiff said that defendant had not at any time asked him to keep his bu.H out Th‘ e bull was not in the habit of wandering. After the bull was killed Constable McCl inchy went to Netherton and found the fences, etc., in a ba,d state 1 and the gates open. The drain usejl to be a big one. He used the bank as a race to drive his cattle along. Defendant’s fence was on the other side of the bank. There was no fence on his’ side. He had never turned the bull on to the road, and defendant had never complained. When defendant seht word to say that the bull was in the paddock he went and got it immediately. Defendant had never asked him to ring and chain the beast. Defendant had been quite straightforward about the killing of; the bull. A note was sent co him by defendant to come and remove it. He admitted it was sometimes defftmental to - have a bull among a certain class of dairy cows. The bull was well worth the amount claimed. It was certainly ..worth more than £2 10s. To Mr Hanim plaintiff . said tnat the drains had-’not been cleaned out for about three years. The prices of ordinary grade Jersey bulls of late were no criterion as' to the value of his bullTo His Worship plaintiff said that the fences were not in good order. All the neighbours had trouble with their bulls at. this- time of the year. He received £25 for the bull’s mother, the sire, being a pedigree animal from

Tai , a , uaki» This concluded the case for the plaintiff. , j. H. J- Johnson, the defendant, -sworn, said that his property adjoined the plaintiff’s and there was a 4-wirc fence between the two. The drain bank was on the boundary, ahd the fence was built an the spoil f;rpm the drain. The pldintiff got £l5 from the Government to put up the fence on the drain, which he failed to do properly. The condition of the fence at present was' bad. He had trouble with the plaintiff’s’ bull on five occasions. His children put the bull out on several occasions, and he sent word to plaintiff to keep his bull in. and suggested that he should ring the bull and put a chain on him. His wife and children helped on the farm, and had been annoyed by the bull. The day tihe bull was killed it came into the yard with .his cows. Tihe bull charged- him in the shed, and he lassoed it. He then sent word to plaintiff to come and move the bull or he would 'inform the police. He thought that the amount of £lO per cow as damages was very reasonable. The cost of erecting and repairing the fence would be very high. There would be a total of- 36% chains to be repaired. The children were- very frightened of the bull, and plaintiff said the bull would change the children. He chained his own bull, and did not deny killing plaintiff’s bull after noitfying the plaintiff to keep the bull away. He killed the bull because it bad rushed him. The price of 'the bull would be about £2 10 s, judging by the prices he had seen at the sales. The plaintiff’s bull had been wandering *on the road since it was a call;. To Mr Hanna defendant said the beast was a very savage one, but he lassoed it and either- led or drove it into the paddock. The fence had been in disrepair for some years, and he had fixed it several times with willow posts. The fence Was still broken the day before the. bull was killed. The fence was not, cattle-proof. A new fence was necessary to save further trouble. He did not know that the cow was a particularly good cow, ahd it did not follow that the mother being good made the bull a valuable one. * Tp His Worship witness said he had served plaintiff with 8- notice to fence. Owing to i.ll-ihealth he was unable to do anything towards repairing the fence. F. Johnson, brother of; defendant, said that he knew the defendant had a good Shorthorn herd. He knew the bull, and had had experience in buying cattle. He did not think the bull was worth more than £5- There was not a big demand for Jersey bulls

other than pedigrees. At the sale last week they were only worth £1 to £2 10s. He was a supplier, tp the local dairy company, and was aware that the company would now advance money to purchase pedigree bulls. To Mr Hanna he said the fence had not been iff very gopd repair for the last year. A bull from a really gopd cow was valuable, but the cow it was put of must be known.

To His Worship witness said that nearly all the farmers kept their own bulls.

His Worship summing up, said that the fence was not a legal and sufficient fence,. By the fact that Johnson had served Smith with a notice to put up a fence, under the Fencing Act' defendant could have forced Smith to carry out half the amount of fencing necessary. He quoted authority from the Fencing and Impounding Acts. Defendant had clearly no right to kill the bull. He was hot satisfied that the bull was worth £l5, nor was he satisfied that plaintiff had suffered inconvenience by loss of. the bull.

Judgment was’ .given for plaintiff for £5 for the bull. With regard to the counter-claim by defendant His Worship said that it could not stand as the land was insufficiently fenced. Judgment was given to plaintiff on tihe counter-claim, with solicitors’ costs £5 and court costs £2 12s,