A DEAL IN SHEEP.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXIX, Issue 7826, 19 June 1909, Page 4

A DEAL IN SHEEP.

At the Supreme Court, Christchurch, before His Honour Mr Justice Deriniston, yesterday, James Neave, of Fendalton, Alfred J; Wagner, of Riialpuna, and J. J: Dpugall, solicitor, of Christchurch, blaimkd £348 10s damages from Edward, Taylor, sheep-far-mer,- of Ashburton, in; respect of the purchase of a number.of-.sheep-in September, 1908. The claim alleged "t a breach of warranty of age, and there was an alternative claim' for deceit on the • ground of misrepresentation< of age. Mr Wilding appeared for the plaintiffs,, and Mr Hall for th,e deiehdant." ■ " .-.;.•' Mr Wilding, in outlining the case, said that in the sale of the sheep 2488 ewes were given delivery of, among which there were 650 two-tooths, about which thofe was no Question. Of the remaining ' 1838 ewes, which had 1, .by agreement, to be two, four', arid sixtooth, no fewer than 697 were five years'old- and Upwards, - and .were not worth half the price, and the plaintiffs claimed 10s a head on the 697. A. J. Wagner, sheepfarmer, one of the plaintiffs, gave evidence that in August he had negotiated for the purchase from Taylor of 1800 acres of land at Ruapuna. At an interview at Dalgety's oißce, there being present Dobbin, Taylor, Stewart, and Neave and himself, the price of thejand was fixed. In discussing the price' of the sheep Taylor said he would guarantee to sell 2500 ewes out of the flock at two, four and six-tooth. On September, 2 he inspected the floe. 1",, and expressed the opinion that it included old ewes. Taylor said they would ajl be taken out. He several times mentioned his suspicion that there were old ewes in the flock, but Taylor denied, it. Several months after the transaction he found 695 old ewes in the flock. The ewes were beyond five years old. He valued them in September at 10s. When he ■took the sheep over they wero in suciv good condition that he could not tell they were old without closely inspecting them. ■'• To Mr Hall : He considered that n four or six-tooth-ground-down mouthed ewe was as good as a five-year-old ewe. .. i.

James Neaye, sheep-farmer, Fendalton, gave evidence in support of the claim. The purchase was made subject to inspection. Old ewes were specifically excluded, from the purchase. to Mr Hall : It was'difficult to say whether a four-year-old ewe, with a badly knocked ab'cmt mouth, was as good as a six-year-old with a good mouth. .-..'' J. Robertson, manager for Dalgety and 00., Ashburton. said that ho visited Ruapuna with x Wagner early in September. They put about, sixty sheep from one mob through the mouthing race, and found that four or five were old ewes. The defendant's attention was drawn to'these..sheep, and he stated that any sheep of that description would be removed, and that "Wagner would get delivery of none but four and six-toothed ewes. Witness suggested that Wagner should Jake some five-year-old ewes, but he refused. .S. H. Doffin, land salesman,'for Dalgety and Co., gave evidence that Wagner elected to take the young ewes. James Cow, sheep dealer, said that he had mouthed from 200 to 300 of the 697 ewes, and all,.of.■them must have been more than five years old in September, when ■ their value would be from 10s to 11s. Colin Stewart gave similar evidence. Mr Hall submitted that there was no case to answer. The plaintiff's claim depended on a breach, of warranty, but even if there had been a term in the contract the conditions under which the , claim was made 'precluded any Court from giving relief now. After delivery, Wagner iiept the sheep in the yards over tailing time' and shearing time. He admitted that his suspicions were aroused, and the, duty was, therefore, cast on him to satisfy himself. He did nothing until.March or April, and meantime sheared the sheep and sold the wool and lambs..; His Honour said that he knew of no rule which could prevent the plaintiff's statutory right of action, apart from the statute of limitations. He could not give a nonsuit on equitable grounds because the delay of the. parties suing had prejudiced the defendant. John Doyle, farmer, of Ruapuna, said that 'he had examined the sheep last month, and found them all soundmouihed with the exception of about 4 ier.cent. The Ruapuna country was as hard on sheeps' mouths as any, country he knew. , A Ruapuna four-year-old would be as bad as another six-year-old, . .„■ : irVilliani Wilson a^tid George Harrison gave similar evidence. ■", Andrew Wallace, 'shepherd to. the defendant,, stated that the five-year-old ewes rejected iii the first instance had been .taken. to the Klondyke country, and,, after lambing, sold for 10s, about the rend of February, after shearing. The lambs realised. 12s 6d,*and the ewes clipped about 71bs or 81bs of wool. • Mr Hall put in'evidence given by the defendant before leaving for England, Honour, in giving judgment, said that it was clear that there had 'been a warranty, and the inspection and acceptance : would have nothing to do with the condition of the ages.' If the warrarity Was not complied with,there was a. breach, and the remedy was an action for damages. It seenied to him clear 1 that there had been a breach, for no-] body had pretended to say that the I sheep were not older than the warranty. That being so, it was unnecessary to deal with the question of deceit. The question of delay was no answer to a statutory claim for damages. It was explained, if not justified, by, the fact that the defendant had lulled the plaintiffs in a sense of security when suspicions were aroused. The plaintiffs had established their warranty, and on the question of damages he could only take the evidence of xhe. value of the sheep at the time of the bargain. Tie thought that probably the value had been overestimated, and the delay in bringing the action might have somewhat prejudiced the defendant in the matter of proof of value. He would allow 7s on 680 sheep, and gave judgment for £238, with costs. •