SALE OF FARM

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 19903, 4 June 1936, Page 12

SALE OF FARM

CLAIM FOR £915.

I, MISREPRESENTATION ALLEGED. INFECTION OF STOCK. A claim for £915 damages for al—leged fraudulent representations was 'niade by James Nicholson. farmer, of Puketatua, against Alfred Bedfern, in the Supreme Court at Hamilton to-day ibefore His Honour, Mr Justice Fair. ' .\lessrs \\'. D. Anderson and \V. C. ‘5. Bainbridge (Auckland) represented plaintiff and Mr ii. A. Swarbrick (Tc Edwamutu) appeared for defendant. I The statement of claim referred to {the purchase of a farm by Nicholson ‘i'rom Radiant, and the claim was in ,‘respect to this transaction. Plaintiff iclaimed £l2l 10s damages for hay, Awhich had been taken off the farm latter it had been sold and before Iplaintifi‘ took possession, and further ialleged that the stock he bought from lledl‘eru was badly infected by mammitis and besides being useless had affected most of his 63 cows which he had to replace. In addition to claiming for the replacement of the cows, plaintiff also claimed £6B damages for the loss of milk from the affected cows. .In evidence the plaintiff Nicholson outlined the purchase of the farm and stated that he was told the property could carry 100 cows. He brought 30 cows of his own, and 33 he pur—l chased from a man named lliil. ol Cambridge, on to the farm. These cows were perfectly clean. He purchased 35 cows from Hedfern and then had 98 cows on the property. When he got to the farm. however, he found that five. stacks of hay had disappeared. and he could not carry his entire herd and had to sell ‘lB. He sold none of Bedfern‘s but some of his and some of those he had bought from Hill. One of Redfern‘s cows was the first to come in, and after calving it died two days later. The cow had an unusually large udder but would not give milk. Witness buried the cow as he thought one usually had s. few losses but the next cow to calve did exactly the same thing, This also was a cow he had bought from defendant. He rang the stock inspector who came out and told witness the animal had died of acute mammitis. He had his cows tested then, and all but two of the animals he had bought from Redt‘ern were suffering from acute mammltis. There were 17 of his own herd also affected and more were infected each week. Dlugnoaln of Mummltlu. 1 Cross-examined by Mr Swarbriek,‘ plaintiff stated that, with proper treatment, '75 per cent. of udder ailmentsl did not develop into mammltls. The diagnosis of the stock inspector had shown that the herd was infected with mammitls in a most acute form, but. when witness mentioned the position‘ to defendant he had been informed that ‘ it was “his own funeral.“ By March he had 17 of the 22 cows in forward condition and sold them for £57, re—presenting a loss _ot 105 on the pur—chase price plus the probable receipts from the season's milking. After he had purchased the property he had instructed defendant to feed out small (mantilios of hay if the weather be—came rough but two stacks had dis—nppeal‘cd when he took possession. ‘ Assurance by Defendant. I A stock and station agent of Hamilton. Harry Dunstan Matthews, stated that he had been present at the interViews between plaintiff and defendant when Bedfern had stated that the cows were all sound and had assured Nicholson that he had had no trouble with mammitis. He had affirmed that there were no unsound cows, all of which defendant. said he had sold the preceding week. Defendant had stated that he must have sufficient bay to feed the cows before the date of possession ailild .this was agreed upon by plainti ‘. A farmer residing at Pukeatua, Norman Fletcher, said that on August 1 the had purchased ‘2O cows from plain—itii'f. Since that time four had showed signs of beini,r slightly infected with a mild form of mammatis which readily responded to temporary treatment but at the time of their purchase they were perfectly sound. In September he had inspected a dead cow on plaintiff's property, and, in his opinion, death was due to \‘ery severe mammitis. .\lr Swot-brick said that under agreement defendant was to feed out hay to the plaintiff‘s cows, and the amount of ha}~ in the stacks had been grossly misconrcived by Nicholson. it was denied that the representations regarding mmnmitis had been made: secondly. if they hurt been made that “It’i' \\‘Cl‘L' t‘ru‘riml out or. thirdly, that if the representations were false they did not induce the plaintiff to make the purchase. The disease itself might in“ lllll't‘ly intent and could be dim-oy-crcd uni). if at all. by bacteriological cxmninalion. l‘ndcr these circum—stances defendant would be justified in stating that his herd was not in—-let-ted. Plaintiff had mixed defend. anl‘s cows with his own “01-51 which he had admitted was slightly infectedl with a mild form of disease, amll it would be shown that the handlingl anti the seasonal conditions might have been responsible for it assuming a \‘iruh-nl form.

In evidence, the plaintiff [old the Iluurl, lhul he hurl uuver hoen askull slmul Immlluilis in the howl \\'he'u mgnliulil‘ms for Hip DUl'L'hflht‘ were hm mg l'lll'l'iL‘ll out. 1m! it was agreed that \\‘lhmss should commence using the hay as fodder, About four seasons below- his herd had been affected with .1 mild farm of mammltls, but he had lrl-ulcd the infected vows successfully mm‘ a period of three years. Gross-examincd- 1w Mr, Anderson, defendant claimed that the alleged I:011\'el'5dllolls on the subject of mam~ mills with Mr Matthews and the plainm’t‘ did no! lake place. but he admitled telling plaintiff that there was not a "crook“ cow ln the herd he had bought.

A} this stage the hearing was ad‘ journal until next Tuesday