Mr J. V. SMITH'S CASE.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 3, Issue 675, 25 January 1881, Page 2

Mr J. V. SMITH'S CASE.

(From N.Z. Times). - ■ •;'■ ■ ♦■■.:,'' TpESDAf, Jamjabv M;~ (Before Mr Justice, Richmond.). - Smith v. JoHKSroK. : •. ; ' The, hearing of this ; oaise v waa>MUWf|, the same counsel appearing as oh the previouf'day.' After a short between learned counsel Mr.Ollivier called the fion G. R. Johotton, 4t*^

posed he hud boen a sheep farmer since 1867, and unfottuimtely, knew what scab was. He would not buy scabby sheep Under liny circumstauces unless there was a builinu down plant close by, bo that they could bo immediately slaughtered. It was a much greater loss to imva scab on a. run of difficult country thnn in a g(M)dyr'uri~in the former case it could never be" Known; when the scab would be eradiated, ,The owner of a scabby flock was., put to much greater expense than the ownejr of a clean flock. In this case he would have' preferred to buy clean sheep at U i a head tlmn'hccept the flock in questiori'atS'Rift, \Vitness thought (heexpense for 'dipping the flock was light, but the cost would depend upon circumstances. The witness' was cross-examined at length it to the details uf has through scab.'—Mr Thomas Telford, sheepjnspector for the Whareama district, deposed he had'been in the sheep interest for thirty years"' He would, in certain, circumstances, prefer clean sheep at' ss. to scabby ones' at 2s. ; Gross-examined: He thought ,9d, fl'head it liberal allowance for cleaningicabby sheep. He believed the flock td&jbf: Mr Stbith were, now clean, and loon inspect them, when he should if they were not cleajj, : ;!MX' Henry Walton, fellmonger, depflefed he had:scoured some wool from Mataik'Unajaod'tbr.ough the sheep having . bQefi'dippeUfor, disease the wool was most <3 i fire til t. sfi.-; .bco ut r l , and could .not be The wool was dejn value 2d. to 2}d. per pound. —MrHj'niy. Barber, bii|cher, deposed thßt;wher.eVflj..boiling-down plant for 12,000' sheep waaerfloted, the return from ihe 'first" use .would, pay little more than ' thecoat of the "plant.—Mr P. A.KKrull deposed he'wojild. prefer clean sheep at 6i, to'scabby sheep at 2s. Cross examined j If he had the option of giving up the'whole'of this bargain, or keeping it and taking 13,000 scabby sheep at 6s a head, he would have stuck to the bargain. MrVV. Wi 'Johnston, M.H.R., gave evt : denes,fri' detail of the cost entailed through; the existence of scab in the flock. ThfrdifecttotaVof the losses waß £2OOB, or 3s; jjijL attest], and the indirect losses were ftlso'considerable. He would not have takej) Scabby sheep at a gift. The witness,was v'pry b'rjefly cross-examined ■ -The .plaintiff, Mr (smith, refilled by Mr : Travers,' depoßed that the average yield'of lambs on the run had always been Wpwcßnt, 'The weight of the wool since the site of tfi.e run was the Bame as. it was before. The expense of two dips of I*l,ooo theeji should be only, between £l3O and £ls)','" Theiyalue of wool was not de- . creased by dipping. Crnsß-esamined :- He bfld.beßD obliged to djsmiss Mr Clifton Maekay was called by Mr. Travers as to the loss of Value caußed by scab, and on th,e expense caused in its prediction.—This closed the evidence'on r both'sidei, and after some argument between learned counsel and his'Hdnor,' jhe issues, which numbered , neair.lj; thfrty,*ware reduced to seven, the rest being struck out;—Mr Olliver then proceeded to address the jury for the delence'i:.a'nd.waß, followed by Mr .Travers, his ;HiJpbr"' afterwards- summing up.—At 6.26'the'jury retired, and at 5.53 returned with a general 'verdict for the plaintiff tipper Several poiuts.how. be decided by the' Court inßanoo'befpte thevordictcan.be entered