A SCRUB BULL

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 213, 8 September 1926, Page 14

A SCRUB BULL

J Oii-L THAT MISk.AAM.IED

FARMER SECURES DAMAGES. (Bj Telegrapa.—Own Correepouilem. ; HAMILTON, this day. ! Mr. Justice btruiger and a jury oi twelve heard further evidence in the case in wluch Henry Zimmerman, larmer, Kopaki (Mj. E. M. Mac Kersey), sought to recover iroia iienry Uowtlali, farmer, .Kopaki (Air. J. F. Strang), and Michael Joseph (ialvm, Crown lands ■ ranger, Te Kuiti (Mr. H. F. Johnston), the sum of £550 on the grounds that a bull sold by defendants to plaintiff was fraudulently misrepresented to him i to be a valuable pedigree bull, whereas j it was only a scrub bull. Plaintiti ! claimed £350 for loss in the value of calves and £200 general damages. The defence was a denial that the bull was ever represented hy the defend- 1 ants, who were Government employees, 1 as a pedisree animal. It was sold as a grade bull. Evidence was given by pla : ntiff and members of his family along the lines of i counsel's address. Experts etated that I £23 was a ridiculously high price for a five-year-old grade bull, the manager of a lierd testing association remarking that all bulls which had no pedigree were scrub bulls.

Michael Joseph Galvin, in evidence, said the best of the thres bulls on the Piu farm was sold to Zimmerman. The Government had paid about £40 for it. Hβ had never informed Zimmerman that the bull had a pedigree. Dowdall informed him that Zimmerman was repeatedly asking for a pedieree. Defendant was amazed. He decided to write Zimmerman a pretty strong letter on the subject. Then he eiuLleiily took a humorous view of the situation and typed instead the list of names quoted. Ho. never conceived that th? list of name-, I'OTild l>o taken -seriously by anyone. When Zimmerman asked about the buttcrfat hacking, defendant, considering that plaintiff was entering into the spirit of the joke, replied that Sylvia Pankhurst. one of the fictitious grandams. had a 7.6 test. (Laughter.)

After other evidence had been called for (he defence, his Honor expressed strong disapproval of I'ialvin's actio.n. It. was highly improper, he said, for a man in charge of a Government department to fabricate n pedigree of the kind produced in Court.

The jury then retired to consider live issues put to it hy the judge, ac the outcome of which plaintiff was awarded £36 against Galvin.