"TELEGANY" AND DAMAGES.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 9, Issue 586, 23 November 1920, Page 2

"TELEGANY" AND DAMAGES.

Sir, Many farmers read with surprise the case reported in your issue of November IC, in which a farmer was given £SO damages for the trespass of a bulT. The plaintiff claimed that his cow was spoiled for breeding pedigree stock for three or four years; and two well-konwn settlers testified that they believed in "telegany," save the mark. Those who believe in "telegany" belong to the same school of thought as the man who curries a raw potato in his pocket to cure rheumatism. It is merely an old wife's fable of (he same class as the belief that moonshine has a harmful effect on fish ami meat, and that thunder 'tends eggs infertile No vet erinarian of any repute has ever sop ported the theory, and it gives one rather a yhock to think that a magistrate should have allowed i-vxh piffle to influence his- verdict.

.But apart from the ''teleganv" aspect of the case, 1 :»MU fail to see wljy the owner of Hie non-pedigree stock was liable for damages, Tho owner of (he pedigree cattle was equally part owner of the boundary fence; and as the owner of special stock one would have thought he would have provided special fences to protect them. An owner, whom I know, of thoroughbred horses, provides a double fence for their protection. Suppose for the sake of argument, that he did not provide the double fence, and that a mare valued at £3OO in fighting over the fence with a plow horse receives such injuries that she has to be destroyed. Would the owner of the plow horse be liable for £3OO damages? I think there has been a grave miscarriage of Justice, and that it is to be regretted that the case was not taken to the Appeal Court. J. S! MONTGOMERY. Mangere, November 21, 1920.