GRAZING STOCK.

Taranaki Daily News, 11 July 1921, Page 8

GRAZING STOCK.

QUESTION OF RESPONSIBILITY. INTERESTING CASE AT PATEA. What are the liabilities of a farmer who takes in the grazing of stock f<rr others was the subject jf an action heard at the Patea Magistrate’s Court on Thursday before Mr. T. A. B. Bailey, S.M., when Thomas C. C. Simson proceeded against Annie E. Harvie, of Manutahi, hotel-keeper. Mrs. Harvie in the winter of last year placed. 31 head of stock for grazing on plaintiff’s farm at Whenuakura. When the stock were taken away it was found that one was missing. The plaintiff alleged that he spent a considerable time in looking for this beast and he claimed wages for this time. The claim, which was for £57 12s 6d, 3lso alleged that Mrs. Harvie had guaranteed certain cows sold to plaintiff to be sound and. in calf, and some of them turned out not to be so. He further claimed grazing for the 31 head at the rate of four shillings per head weekly, while defendant alleged that the rate agreed on was three shillings. The price for certain stock bought from Mrs. Harvie was to go in reduction or wiping off the grazing. Simson alleged that, the price agreed on for the purchase of the stock was £62,. while Mrs. Harvie alleged it wag £7O. On the question as to whether plaintiff could charge for the time spent in looking for the missing beast, in which search he was ■ assisted by Chandler, farm manager for Mrs. Harvie, Mr. O’Dea, who appeared for Mrs. Harvie, quoted a recent decision of the Court of Appeal in England, whi*h decided that when a farmer who takes in grazing learns of the loss of stock which he is grazing and makes nb effort to Tecovefr them, even if it was doubtful if such efforts would have resulted in their recovery, as in the case of theft, he is liable for the loss of the animals. He submitted that it was plaintiff’s duty to make efforts to find the cow, and instead of his being paid for the time he ought to pay Mrs. Harvie. for the time spent by her farm manager in searching. ' The Magistrate upheld this view of the law. On the question of damages for the alleged guarantee as to the cows being sound and in calf, Simson, tinder cross-examination, at first denied, but on being shown the letter, admitted that he had written to defendant’s farm manager mentioning that two of the cows were not in calf, and adding: “It is hard luck for me.”

Counsel for Mrs. Harvie submitted to the Court that if the guarantee had been given plaintiff would have written instead: “It is hard luck for Mrs. Plaintiff was still under cross-examina-tion when the luncheon adjournment was taken. On resuming, Mr. Roberta, counsel for plaintiff, said he would not proceed any further, but would elect to be non-suited. Plaintiff was accordingly non-suited with costs to defendant.