A DISPUTE ABOUT A COW.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 180, 9 November 1910, Page 7

A DISPUTE ABOUT A COW.

DEALER IN COURT. At the Magistrate's Court yesterday morning, before Mr. Fitzherbert, S.M., George W. Richardson, a farmer, oi Bell Block, formerly of Oakura, sued M. H. Barnitt, fanner and cattle-dealer, living on the Old Hospital Road, for £o, value of a cow alleged to belong to plaintiff, but detained by defendant" ana for £2 damages for its detention from September last to the date of the issue of the summons. Mr. Grey appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Quilliam for thb defendant. The case for the plaintiff was thai some years ago he bought a number ofcattle from Harry Looney, of Koru, among these being a heifer which, while in plaintiff's possession, met with an accident, and as a result was easily recognisable. The cow disappeared from plaintiff's farm about two years ago. Oil September 1 of this year a son of the plaintiff saw the beast offered for sale, Barnitt was the vendor. Barnitt said he bought it from Mr. Mills, of Koru. The animal, which was in poor condition, was not sold. On the following morning plaintiff and his son drove to Barnitt's place. • Barnitt told them the cow was on a farm at Smart road. They went to Smart road, and recognised the cow. It was in a paddock that con-i tained no grass, but turnips that had been eaten down. The place, it was alleged, provided no feed for cattle, and there were several dead cows in it. Thb j cow was in very poor condition. They met Barnitt in New Plymouth, and Mills i came along while they were speaking to Barnitt, who took Mills out to see the cow, but Mills could not say then I whether or not Barnitt had got the cow from him. He spoke to Barnitt ' about the paddock in which the cow I was, and offered to put the animal on \ good grass, but Barnitt refused this, 1 saying that he would look after it. The! cow afterwards died. I Mr. Quilliam applied for a non-suit,' and after legal argument His Worship, 1 in giving judgment, said he 'had hela over and over again that where there was a demand it must be a reasonable one, and one that defendant could comply with, and also a personal demand. It" a man was asked for a chattel, and siid "no," that would not be a demand or a refusal. The plaintiff would have to go to the defendant's place and ask for tiie chattel and be prepared to take it away with him. His Worship said he could not hold that there was a demand, however much he might desire to do so. Under the circumstances the plaintiff would be non-suited. He had other remedies. The costs were £1 18s.