S.M. Court.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XL, Issue 7917, 24 September 1904, Page 7

S.M. Court.

•■ PALMERSTON— FRIDAY. Before Mr A s D. Thomson, S.M)

Alleged Breaeli of Contract.

After we went to press yesterday the following evidence was adduced, on behalf of the defendant, in the case of Arthur Currie (Mr Baldwin) v. Chas. Selby (Mr Cooke), claim £71,155, damages for alleged breach of a contract to milk on shares.

Chas. H. Whitehead said- he was present when the agreement was signed by the parties. Previous to signing, the list of dates of calving of the oows was read by the defendant and-witness aloud. Plaintiff also saw the list. Subsequently plaintiff told witness than he intended approaching, defendant relative to the cows not coming in at the proper date. He expected, witness understood, to receive some recompense for the lost time.

Cross examined, witness said he thought the cows were taken ou the understanding that the dates were right. Tbe defendant, in evidence, detailed the preliminary negotiations with the plaintiff whom, ho said, he told that he knew nothing about the cows himself, j A draft agreement was shown plaintiff and carefully explained to him. Subsequently plaintiff signed the agreement, which was first read over and explained to him. When the list of dates was handed to plaintiff he was told, that witness knew nothing about the cows, Mr Bigoell having supplied all particulars? Jflaihtiff cornplaiaed to him (witness) of tbe cows not calving at due dates. Witness said he was very sorry but it was not his fault and the loss was as much? his as plaintiff's, He gave plaintiff work to keep? him going and also helped him with his hay so that labour would not have to be employed. Plaintiff had not asked him to replace a cow that died neither did..he say anything to him of his (plaintiff's) intention to sue, .though witness heard ii from outside sources. Witness did not even mention that fact when he,.was leaving. He thought a practical man could tell within two months when a cow was

going to calve. Wiinoss paid he would not have been satisfied wlh the list had he been in plaintiff's position. He would havo trusted to his own experience. Regarding grazing tbe sheep ho said he would admit it was not a good praotice to graze the milking cows with the sheep and in this instance they were not. There were only 40 sheep placed in the paddock and- thej were hot among the milking cows. There were three padr docks for the milking cows to graze in..Dealing with-the. price' r,eceiyecL 'for. thecalves wijjnpss admitted late calvesrwew? not as faluable as early ones.""biif:as good a price was got for the' calves'iast year: as the... previous year-. Just as much, also,-was made .out? of pigs last year as was made the previous year.' despite the fact that the price per lb this year was 3-^d, compared with 5d the' previous year. The returns from the cows were ,£l2 or £13 less than the previous year,

Cross-examined witness said they had the list, of dates. with them when the cows were inspected-by the plaintiff and Mrs Bignell. . The notes, made on the list of cows calving in August did not constitute, he thought, a guarantee of the date of calving. • Witness would not swear .that.he told plaintiff, when the deed was signed, that. he. wouldn't guarantee the dates, but he had told him so several' times previously. PI aintifE growled about the eows'as soon as they commenced to fail to calve at duedates. Adam Currie said the. feed on the plaintiff's place last year was quite as good as any one else's. '

Counsel having addressed the Court, the S.M, reserved judgment.