CATTLE THAT VANISHED

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 6, Issue 258, 13 March 1917, Page 1

CATTLE THAT VANISHED

MAGISTRATE'S JUDGMENT The claim, partially heard the preceding day as already reported, was continued in the Mercer Magistrate's Court before Mr E. C. Cutten, S.M., on Friday, of Clunie James Drake, farmer, of Whangamarino, against John Hamilton Walker, farmer, of Kopuku, for the return of a cow named' Tulip" and its calf, or in their equivalent the payment of the sum of £l6. The cow and calf, it will be remembered, were stated to have disappeared, along with other stock from the plaintiff's farm while he was away at the war but had been purchased in good faith by the defendant.

Mr A. W. Gould again appeared for the plaintiff (Drake) and Mr A. K. Duthie and Mr Mahony represented the defendant, whilst Mr W. J. Fallon watched the proceedings on behalf of Cecil Norman Mardon, a witness for the defence, who was under cross-examination when the Court adjourned on Thursday. William Mason McLean, who is employed as a share milker by Johnson, who was in the company of Mardon when the latter was engaged in securing a cow which had allegedly strayed on to Drake's property, first gave evidence. Beferring to the sale ®f cattle to Wrigley, whose farm was subsequently purchased by the defendant in the present case, witness said the animals were branded with a V brand. He would not swear that the cow that was the basis of the present action was one of those so branded. On Johnson's place there were now cows with one brand superimposed on another. Witness may have put the V brand on another brand, not knowing that it was illegal to do so, or that the animal had been branded in the same place already. Johnson always instructed him how to brand the cows. Mardon, further cross-examined by Mr Gould, denied that he advised Mrs Johnson to fight the " Tulip " case for all it was worth. Asked if he had a dispute with Garmonsway (plaintiff's late manager) over a red and white animal witness admitted he had. The anittal, he added, had been on his (Mardon's) place for 18 months and he regarded it as his but Garmonsway took it away first saying that it belonged to plaintiff but later admitting that it belonged to him (Matdon). Mr Gould: Weren't jou proposing to sell the beast to Johnson ? Witness : It had been practically sold to Johnson.

Mr Gould: And was it subsequently sold to Johnson ? Witness : Not that I know of. Mr Gould: Did not Garmonsway defy you to sell the beast to Johnson because it belonged to Drake ? Witness: No.

Mr Gould (sharply): When Garmonsway made that statement did he not know you were about to sell it to Johnson ? Witness: Yes.

Mr Gould: Was not Thomas Johnson present at that interview 'i Witness : I don't know. Mr Gould: Was he not present when Garmonsway said the beast belonged to Drake 'r 1 Witness: I have no clear recollection.

Mr Gould: Have you ever claimed the beast from Garmonsway ?

Witness: Yes. I asked him for the beast and he asked me for money which he alleged I owed him and I left it at thai

Mr Gould: What became of the beast? Did you not know that Garmonsway sold the beast te Stokes '1

Witness: I heard so. Mr Gould: Does Stokes know that Garmonsway took a red and white cow from you ? Witness : I don't know. Mr Gould : Did you not tell him ? Witness: I think I did. I'm not sure.

Thomas Foote, farmer, Maramarua, giving evidence, stated that he had lived for some years about six miles from Drake's property and had lost several beasts.

Mr Gould suggested that such evidence was not revelant to the action but Mr Mahony contended that it showed that other beasts had been lost and that " Tulip " had been so lost.

Detective Sweeney, being recalled, spoke as to an interview he had had with Mardon when ho asked Mardon to go and viow the cow " Tulip " telling him that it looked very awkward for him. Mardon informed him that it was no use for him to go up as he did not know the cattle, but relied on his manager. In addresfcing the Magistrate for the defence, Mr Mahony contended that the evidence as to the " AK " brand mark was inconclusive and he suggested that Mr Boale, who sold out to plaintiff, Bhould have boen called to connect tho link that the cow " Tulip " was the one that he sold to Drake. Even the plaintiff himself was not clear as to which cow was " Tulip." Ho did not seem to remember the cow as well as he could remember the name. Mr Mahony, in conclusion, submitted that there was no evidence as to where plaintiff got the boast from, and that there was doubt as to whore tho person was who got the brand and doubt as to whom the cow belonged. He urged that there had not been clear proof as to the follow-

ing up of the cow from the time it disappeared as Tulip until the present cow said to be Tulip was discovered.

Mr Gould, for the plaintiff, claimed that he had identiiied the beast as completely as could possibly be. He submitted two points of law on the subject, viz., (1) Persons dealing with property in chnttels offer them at their

peril and (2 A purchaser of goods from a ; endor who has no title to them is liable for their full value if he subsequently resells and delivers them to another person.

Judgment was given for plaintiff for the return of the cattle, or, in the alternative the sum of £l6. The defendant was ordered to pay the costs, the amount to be settled by the parties or referred to the Magistrate in Auckland.

In the case of Drake v. Amelia Johnson judgment was entered by consent for the plaintiff for the return of the cattle claimed or in the alternative the sum of £27 and the matter of a calf, which had died, was settled by an allowance of £2 to the plaintiff for the animal. The hearing of the case did cot conclude until 10.45 pm.