CERTIFICATION OF STALLION

Press, Volume LXXVI, Issue 23003, 24 April 1940, Page 14

CERTIFICATION OF STALLION

PLAINTIFF NON-SUITED IN DAMAGES CLAIM On the ground that negligence . was not proved, the plaintiff, James Bobert Cochrane, was non-suited in a claim of £223 4s general, and special damages against Horace E. Martin, who,' tiie plaintiff alleged, had wrongly certified a thoroughbred stallion, Bousseau, as suitable for breeding remounts. A reserved judgment was given by the Magistrate. Mr F. F. Beid, SJVL, yesterday. In the case, heard' 1 earlier in the month, Cochrane was represented by Mr E. B. Martin, and the defendant, Martin, by Mr W. R. Lascelles. Be vie wing the evidence, the Magistrate, in his judgment, said that the plaintiff had in July offered to purchase Bousseau subject to a veterinary surgeon’s certificate that the stallion was suitable as a remount sire. The defendant, a veterinary surgeon, was called on to make an examination, after which he issued a certificate in which it was stated that the horse would be suitable to breed remounts. In September, the plaintiff took the hcrse to his . stud farm at Gore.' In October it was examined by two Government veterinary surgeons in accoirdsince with the Eemounts Subsidy Begulations 1938, and they rejected him asa remount sire on the grounds of genital defects.; One of these men described the horse as a mon orchid or “rig.” Evidence supporting this was also given by a veterinary surgeon who examined the horse in March, by the plaintiff, and by a studmastsr who examined it in July. Against this was evidence that both the defendant and an independent veterinary surgeon had made careful examinations which did not agree with evidence that the horse was a “rig.” The horse was not necessarily useless as a stallion, the Magistrate said, but if it were established that he was a “rigV he would not he suitable for remount breeding. To succeed - in the action the plaintiff had to prove negligence on the part of the defendant. In the evidence for the plaintiff and the defendant there was a direct conflict of expert opinion. The witnesses were honest and emphatic in their opinions, but the opinions differed. The plaintiff, to prove negligence, had to satisfy the Court that the defendant’s certificate was given carelessly or recklessly or without proper examination. “I do not think he • has done so,” the Magistrate added, .“and ’therefore plaintiff must be non-suited > Costs were allowed in defendant s favour. ’