A Stock-buying Case.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVI, Issue 72, 29 March 1904, Page 2

A Stock-buying Case.

IMPORTANT TO DEALERS AND FARMERS. Mr Stanford, S.M., yesterday heard the case of the Mortgage Loan and Agency Company v. R. J. Nicholls. Tins was a claim for £~)0 (.value of 115 head of cat He) or the return of the cattle. Mr Richmond appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Fitzherbert, fo» Hie defendant.

For the plaintiff, Thomas O. Kelsey, secretary of the company, was called. Only Jul 2- 2s (id out of JilSfi Ifad been paid, this sum having been realised by the snlo of slock. The remaining principal monies otherwise were unpaid. 'li'lie lease was of no value. The company had realised on all the stock they could secure, wk.li the exception of one horse which they were now holding. The agreement was made by Air l.ennon. who acted as secretary during wUness' absence from the col-

To Mr Fitzherbert : Did not. know the horse Ranaiin rami: within the scope of the bill of sale. There was no imputation of fraud against the defendant.

11. A. Lennon, who had acted as secretary for the plaintiff com- | pany during Mr Kelsey's absence, gave evidence. Remembered Mr G, 11. Kisley's application for a loan. There were 23 steers alive then. Mr liutchen subsequently made npplicasion for permission to sell the steers, and that leave was granted subject to their being replaced by fresh stock, the witness to hold the money until the fresh stoel; was bought. Sixty yearling calves replaced the stock sold. Witness did not receive the money proceeds of the sale. To Mr Filzlicrhrrt : Did not receive Hie money, but had an assurance that the new stock had replaced that sold. Di'd not then know that Sisley owned Ranana when the security was given. Henry C. Sisley, brother of Geo. 11. Sisley, who had raised this loan, deposed : Did not know where the money was obtained from. The transaction took place in July last. His brother then had about 20 two-year-old steei-s and about four horses. The steers were not paid tin-. His brother had now left the colony, so far as witness knew. The steers were sold in August, and they realised £3 10s each. Mr L. Jones was the purchaser. The steers had been purchased from Messrs Wyllic and Stott. Knew all of G. 11. Sisley's dealings—everyone knew that. Some 20 yearling calves were bought before the steers were sold, and were kept on Rowo's farm, leased to Sir Sisley. The yearlings were Afterwards sold, Mr Nicholls getting 25, and Mr Dennett n few. The yearlings purchased by Mr Vicholls had been grazing on Howe's farm. (The defence admitted the purchuse and receipt of the cattle). To Mr Fitzherbert. : The earmarks mentioned in the schedule were witness' ; they were now Mr Southey Raker's. The 20 steers bought by Mr Jones bore witness' earmark. Mr G. 11. Sisley had no registered brand. The ten cows mentioned' in the security belonged to witness, nnd were marked with his earmark. T. 0. Kelsey, recalled, said the land was the farm mentioned as Rowe's, section 2, block 11, Upper Waitara. - Jones, of Ureti, gave evidence that he bought 21 steers from Air G. 11. Sisley. There were about 510 yearlings on the place then, purchased afterwards by Mr Nicholls Mr Sisley held another farm on the Moki Road.

This dosed the ens,, for t)„ ~il lin. tiff. Air Fitzherbert, In opening, said that one, Geo,-g,. |,. Sisley,' had obtained a loan from the plitiuiilT company, on stork that did not belong !" '"'"■ 'l'he stock was now, and the inline, ,received for R was spent on other stock. Air Nicholls was a bona fide purchaser of some of the animals, and the question was, who was the owner, the company or George Sisley. He submitted the legal phase of the case, and applied for a nonsuit. The instrument provided for the mortgagor to brand with a registered brand, whereas the mortgagor had no registered brand or earmark. 'l'he company should have seen that there was aji earmark and that this was marked on (he cattle. Otherwise there was no protection to farmers, who were constantly buying and selling stock amongst themselves. He submitted that the cattle did not come under the bill of sale until they hud been branded, and quoted several authorities in support of his nrguim-nts. No provision was made in the schedule for branding or marking acquired stock, and the absence of' this must lie fatal to the plaintiff's case. It. was absolutely Impossible now for the company to identify f-lm stock sold to Mr Nicholls. Uv Richmond contended that the fact of the grantor having covenanted to brand was overlooked bv Mr Fitzherbert. His Worship said the company could not intervene in matters between the third par.ty, who had purchased the utock. He might he wrong, and it was open for Mr Richmond to reply. Air Richmond submitted that the purchaser should ascertain whether or not the stock to be purchased were depasturing on mortgaged land I'he purchaser might know of this from the notification of a inortg-i.i-o having been registered. He contended that stock brought in or on the place in place of cat tie mentioned in the schedule came within the scope of the bill of sale, and he submitted that section H 5 of the Chattels Transfer Act could not ho extended us argued by Air Fitzherbert. Air Fitzherbert replied. The law quoted by Air Richmond had been superseded by subsequent legislation. He reiterated that for the company lo succeed they should have specified in the schedule the brand to be used. Tho Magistrate said that here was a case in which a man borrowed money on stock on a farm, and on stock substituted. How was this to be Identified, without a brand or mark. It was pushing the matter too far to make it incumbent on an intending purchaser to inquire info the question of mortgages on slock, t was the duty of the grantor lo brand the stock, hut t |„. lv wus ~„ reason why the purchaser should suffer. The plaintiff would be nonsuitMr Fitzherbert staled that, this was a friendly case, and there would bo no costs.