Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

A SALE OF COWS.

SHAW v. BOTTOMLEY. Judgment for Plaintiffs. Reserved judgment in the case of Rose Shaw and Son v. Thomas Bottomley was given at the Matamata S.M. Court on Friday, by Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M., as follows, Mr. Gillies having appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. G. G. Bell for defendant:— “ This is an action wherein the plaintiffs claim damages from the defendant for fraudulent misrepresentation on the sale of dairy cows, and alternatively the plaintiffs claim damages for breach of warranty. The evidence shows that on the 28th May, 1928, the defendant sold to the plaintiffs IS dairy cows at £8 10s per head.

“ The plaintiffs allege that at the time of the sale the defendant falsely and fraudulently represented that they were all from one dairy herd, and that they would all calve in July or August, and also that all the cows were sound.

“At the close of the plaintiffs’ case I held that the evidence did not establish fraud, nor was it proved that the cows were not all from one dairy herd, and directed counsel for defendant to confine his evidence to the breach of warranty alleged as to soundness and date of calving. The defendant denied that he gave any such warranty. The plaintiffs’ witnesses are, however, clear that these warranties were given, and I have no hesitation in accepting their evidence as against that of the defendant and holding that these warranties have been proved. “ The measure of damage to which the-plaintiffs are entitled is laid down by the Supreme Court in Stanford v. O’Donoghue, 1919. G.L.R.. 271, is (a) less of milk and (b) difference between the market value as sound cows and unsound. “ I find on the evidence that eight of the cows were unsound, and that ten had not calved before Sentember 1. I assess the loss of milking at £3l 10s, and the difference Between market value of the unsound cows and the price given as £34. “Judgment will therefore be for the plaintiffs for £49 10s and costs, being the sum of the above amounts less £l6, for which credit is given in the statement of claim.’

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PUP19290228.2.5

Bibliographic details

Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 277, 28 February 1929, Page 1

Word Count
361

A SALE OF COWS. Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 277, 28 February 1929, Page 1

A SALE OF COWS. Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 277, 28 February 1929, Page 1

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert