Catt'e-Dealing Case.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXII, Issue 7, 2 December 1916, Page 7

Catt'e-Dealing Case.

HOLMES V. BUCHANAN. PLAINTIFF NON-SUITED. A cast 1 of an unusual nature was heard yesterday afternoon before Mr W. 11. ilaselden, S.M., wlien William Holmes, stock agent, Stratford, sued John Buchanan, farmer, Kohuratalii, for the price-of twenty-two head of cattle namely £6l 14s. Mr R. S. llutherfurd represented the plaintiff, and Mr A. H, .lobtistone appeared for the defendant. The stock were alleged to have been delivered at the Stratford trucking yards for delivery at Te Wera. William Holmes, plaintiff, said that he sold twenty-two head of cattle to defendant in December last. No mention was made of payment, and the price agreed upon was £2 12s 6d. Witness said he owed money to the N.Z. Loan and M.A. Co., but they were not pressing him for it. As soon as witness had trucked the cattle, he told the Company to book the cattle up against defendant.

W. A. Hewitt, manager of the N.Z. Loan and Mercantile, Stratford, stated in reply to Mr Rutherford, that the transaction took place early in December last year, and he produced a rough note (dated 13th December) but tins was not signed by defendant.

Mr Johnstone, for the defence, said that no cattle were sold and delivered by plaintiff or anyone else. It was quite true that defendant had a farm and that he had twenty-two beasts on the farm. Defendant trucked bis own animals. One, John Brannigan, was with him at the time. Defendant had always said from the beginning that he never got any animals as mentioned. John Buchanan, defendant, said that the first occasion on which he knew about the twenty-two cattle was when he received an invoice from the Loan and Mercantile; and he took it back to them. He then received a letter stating that there was a dispute. Witness wrote denying that he bad received the cattle. The Magistrate remarked that what he was most interested in was to get at the truth. In reply to the Magistrate as to whether he did truck cattle, defendant said be trucked some cattle about the same date and that Brannigan drove the cattle from Mr McMullion’s farm to the Flint Road. He swore that be never purchased cattle from plaintiff. The Magistrate; 1 never heard such a thing that twenty-two head of stock' could he put on the railway and never be received. Surely, the railway ain ihorities could prove it. John Brannigan, drover, in bis evidence, said that in December last be went to Stanley Road and fetched some idle to Flint Road. About a week after he trucked them, but be did not remember the date. Witness sometimes kept a book but lie could not- find last year’s. By Mr Rutherford: You stated that the stock were taken from the Flint Road. When was that?—Early in December. Magistrate to Mr Hewitt; Did the plaintiff tell you that be bad sold the cattle ?—Witness: Yes. Did be tell yon personally?—Yes; 1 think it was the next day. What made you say there was a dispute?—Because Buchanan told me that he did not get the cattle. I want you to tell mo what the. conversation was when you saw defendant a fortnight after the alleged sale.—-Witness said defendant stated that he had received an invoice and that the account wak wrong, as defendant had not got the cattle. Witness told defendant he would make enquiries into the matter. Witness had several conversations with defendant.

Witness continuing, said that Holmes had sold the cattle at Flint Hoad to Buchanan and had assisted to truck them. Witness showed defendant the note by Holmes, but defendant still said he had not got the cattle. Witness mentioned that there had been financial transactions with Holmes and it was stated by defendant that plaintiff owed him £SO and apparently he wanted to make the cattle transaction a contra-account. By Mr Johnstone: How long have von done business with Buchanan?— For some years. Have you ever found him treat you dishonestly?—Certainly not. He has always acted honestly with me. The Magistrate here enquired whether it was the usual custom in cattle dealing not to sign for cattle received?—Witness said there was not much signing done. The Magistrate: Do you know where Holmes got the cattle from?—M itness admitted he did not know. The Magistrate to plaintiff: When did yon get the cattle, from? —From various places. Witness further added that the cattle were trucked about four o’clock there wore no railway people there; he put them in a truck and hooked them up to Buchanan at the Loan and Mercantile. A tier further evidence, the Magistrate said: The wav in which the ease is presented makes me hesitate before giving judgment for the amount. I believe the only course open to unis to non-suit the plaintiff without costs, and if the plaintiff wants gob his money he must produce, evi deuce satisfactory to put his case b" fore the Court. The plaintiff impressed me with his evidence, hut the defendant did not. I want to have the oose brought before tlio Court with proper evidence and the issues clearly before me. That is the reason why 1

,iui non-suiting the plaintiff without .s';.. When you (plaintid) are adum*(l that the evidence warrants d. you can bring your case. ( tinning, Mr Haseldeu said: One of the two of you most be a frightful scoundrel, pre.iurer, or thief. M bat are you tmm thinking of when you urc cot. dttiug such crimes! it is not the money at stake—it is your characters. We must find out the truth and have the truth vindicated, and if possible have every one punished. 1