POULTRY FANCIERS BEFORE THE COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 241, 12 October 1888, Page 3

POULTRY FANCIERS BEFORE THE COURT.

After the adjournment yesberday the evidence of William Taylor Davies, a witness in this case who had to go away, was taken by consent. He deposed to having been employed by tho plaintiff to bring a bird from Onehunga to the Poultry Show. He obtained the bird from a steamer thab arrived from the South', and brought ib into the Poultry Show, where Mr Grainger took it. When asked whom tha bird belonged to he said Mr Cartwright, and something- was said about concession

being made as the Committee expected the bird to be late. In cross-examination witness said Mr Cartwright met him at Onehunga, and he there told him he expected the bird from Christchurch, and gave witness the tickets to take it to the Show. He did not remember having said anything about Waiuku, nor did he remember Mr Grainger or Mr Stevens saying anything. He would swear that Mr Grainger did nob ask whether this was a bird from Waiuku and he (witness) did not reply yes. Plaintiff was then recalled and his examination proceeded with. When cross-examined witness admitted having exhibited the bird brought from Onehunga by Mr Davies. Mr Cotter read a letter from a Mr Clark, of Christchuch, to Mr Cartwright relative to this bird. He entered one of his own birds on July 16th, and substituted the Christchurch bird for ib afterwards. He did nob inform the Secretary of this change, and he had no property in the bird when entered, though he- afterwards obtained property in it by accepting delivery and dealing wibh it by putting ib into the show. Still he had not paid a price for the bird, and as it was not as described tojhim he returned it. He had no opportunity to examine the bird until after bhe awards ab the show had been made, when he found the bird had only taken third prize. On the next day he telegraphed to Mr Clarke that as the bird was not up to expectations he would return it. He did not tell the Secretary or the Committee thab the bird was not his, as he considered that at the time it was his. The letters and telegrams attached to the evidence taken in Christchurch were produced, examined by tha plaintiff, and acknowledged by him. Ho admitted having told Mr Grainger that he expected a bird from Waiuku or the South, and asked for an extension of time as tha bird would not be there until Thursday morning. He had friends in Waiuku bub no birds, and made the statement to Mr Grainger so thatheshouldnotknow where tha bird came from. He swoie he did not say to Mr Grainger that lie expected the bird from Waiuku or the South, he .made no mention of the South. He had no recollection of any mention having been made of Pukekohe. He would swear he did not tell Mr Grainger that the bird might come by Pukekohe, and would swear he never said the bird might come by the train from Pukekohe, or by the Waiuku steamer. The plaintiff was examined by Mr Burton. Edward S. V. Mowbray, Secretary of tha Poultry Association, and Thomas Stephens also gave evidence. Mr Thos. Cotter and Mr Theo. Cooper then argued on legal questions, raising nonsuit points to tha effect that there was no action for the defendants to answer, and further that tha plaintiff had been guilty of fraud. The Court then adjourned until to-day.

This morning, Mr E. W. Burton, couni sel for the plaintiff, replied at considerable length to the arguments of the defendants' counsel. He argued that the defendants by allowing their names to appear on the placards and programmes of the Association made themselves liable in any dispute, and therefore Avere answerable in th© present action. Regarding the question of fraud, he argued that Mr Cartwright'a actions were within hislegal rights. Fraud had not been proved, and according to the rules of the Society, which he considered very contradictory, the Committee did nob have t^e power to disqualify the plaintiS and retain his prizes.

The case is not concluded.