TROUBLE OVER A COW.

Gisborne Times, Volume LVI, Issue 6318, 22 February 1922, Page 7

TROUBLE OVER A COW.

MILK SUPPLY AND COURT SEQUEL.

Litigation over , a cow occupied several hours at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, Mr J. S. Barton, S.iVJL., presiding. The action was one in which John Grieve Ball, auctioneer (Mr L. T. Burnard) proceeded against Leonard John O’Flaherty, a dairy farmer (Mr It. B. Hill), claiming from defendant £l2B being ‘the alleged value of a cow sold by plaintiff to defendant about October 16, 1921. The defendant counter-claimed, alleging a breach of warranty and fraud over the sale, stating that the animal was worth only £lO, which had been paid into Court, leaving the balance of £lB in dispute. Defendant stated in evidence that he had received ■ advice from a Mr llawkins about a good cow which Mr Ball, the plaintiff, iiad for sale at £2B. Witness was very busy at the time on liis own farm, and he could not spare time to see the animal. Hawkins, however, had told him that the cow was a 5 or 6 gallon cow, giving nine or ten pounds of butter per week, and was a successful show animal. He’ said that he would guarantee the cow, and invited witness to come and see her milked, hut witness could not get away to do so at the time. Witness then said that j if the cow came up to what was stat- | ed ho would take her. When the j cow arrived, it seemed to be a ! likely animal though twelve or four-j teen years old. He described the j cow, which he milked the evening she | arrived at witness’ place, and she j gave eight pounds of milk, or less than a gallon. A discussion on the methods of measuring milk, ensued, between the Magistrate, counsel, and witness, and it was explained that a gallon ; of milk weighed 1 011jk, so that the j animal would have to give 50 to 60 pounds of milk a day to come up to ! the guarantee of being a live or six j gallon cow. . I Becords of the cow’s production j were produced, and showed that its j production for the first month had j averaged 281 bs per day, or less than J three gallons. The cow had never I given more than fillbs of milk in a ; day since witness had it. 4 | Witness, continuing, said he saw | Ball four days after lie had purchased ; the cow, and told him that it had ■ not come up to the warranty. Ball I said that lie had measured the cow’s milk by pints, but had not measured j by weighing, as he did not have the j necessary scales. 'Witness suggested | that ■measuring by capacity was not j so correct as froth had to be allowed for. Ball refused to take back the I cow. Two days previous to this he bad rung up plaintiff, who had said that defendant had not given the cow a long enough trial. There was plenty of feed on witness’ farm. The ' animal was worth about £lO at the j outside, and this amount he had paid : into Court. Cross-examined by Mr Burnard, witness admitted that over the telephone he had told Ball that the cow did not like dogs, but she was never rounded up by the dog, which was kept for the children. \ lie cow was not milked in a bail tor the first week, but was thereafter. Prices for stock commenced to drop shortly

after the sale had been effected, but this had not influenced witness in refusing to pay £2B, which would have been a reasonable price had the cow come up to the guarantee. To the Magistrate witness said that he had not, before buying the cow, raised the question of weight in relation to capacity measurement, as a means of gauging her production. Mrs O’Flaherty, wife of defendant, gave corroborative evidence. Charles James Cassidy, an exemployee' of defendant s, corroborated the main features ci defendant’s evidence. George Robert' Moore chairman of directors of the Kin Ora Dairy Factory, said he knew the mother of the cow in question. Milk wasmeasured by weight and a cow was at its best milking age when four or six years old, and at twelve years of age was not giving the maximum quantity. The value oj the cow in question, in Ootober last would, he thought, had it been giving only a small quantity ol milk, have been about £lO. Prices had since fallen and £lO was more than its value now. A neighbour of defendant’s, Arthur O’Neil, said he had milked the cow in question and never known her to give over lolbs at one milking. Having regard to the _ cow’s age lie would have given nothing for it and £lO was a good price to pay for it.

William James Clark, dairy farmer. gave evidence on similar lines. Albert Reginald Hine, auctioneer, deposed to having bred the cow the subject of the action, and shown her at the 1918 show when she first' and second prizes. Counsel for defendant: But she was the only entry.

Continuing, witness said it was a good family cow and used to give easily 101 bof butter per week. The cow ‘was probably not yet nine years old. Some cows would give less milk when their living conditions were altered. To Mr Hill witness said that lie could not say just jwhat the cow used to give at . one milking, but lie thought it would be more than two gallons. Witness had ~sold the tutor £ls, but that was very cheap. In one class at the Show where the cow got first prize—the milking class —there was only one entry, but in another edass. where there we.-, four entries, the cow got second. Henry Bennett Drummond, auctioneer, said he had been loaned the cow, which, in the flush of her milk, was easily a live gallon cow, Allen La nge ‘head yardman for the P.B. Stockbrokers’ Association, said

lie had owned the cow under discussion. The cow was giving from oi to 51 gallons a day while he had her. “Witness had an extensive experience of cows and this one, he thought, was the best lie had ever, sat under. If a cow was knocked about by being with a strange herd it might go off its milk until the next season. He had had this happen to animals owned by himself. The animal in dispute would bo from 7 to 8 years old. To Mr Hill: He estimated the animal’s age by its general ' appear-

ance. . Christopher Harrison, milk yyll- - said he had heard Hawkins say that the cow would give live or six gallons of milk per day. Counsel for defendant and " it" ness engaged in a discussion as to how much froth and how much milk there usually was in the bucket when a. cow was- milked, and how its yield‘could he measured. Herbert W. Hawkins deposed to bavin" told defendant that the coiv was giving live gallons and over pci day. lie knew this, because at the morning milking of the cow, lie had. 'seen a bucket with a capacity oi three gallons and two pints filled, and a billy also was used to hold the rest of the morning’s milk. In the evening milking, the froth came up to tlic”top of the bucket. W hat witness had guarante’ed to defendant on behalf of the vendor. Mr Ball, had been quite correct. r [\) Hill. witness snicl lio lincl told defendant that the cow was o-iving over five gallons per day, and so it was. Witness had invited plaintiff to come and milk the cow himself before lie bought it. Mr Hill examined witness at length asking him if lie had not guaranteed the cow to give five gallons per day. . Witness replied that lie liad not guaranteed the cow to give anything. He could not. Wliat lie liad guaranteed was that at the-time the

negotiations were in progress the j cow was giving over five gallons per I J diem. ’ I

James Ambrose Elvers, auctioned, gave the Court information to the reasons which might cause a cow to “go off.” The cause, amount, and lasting properties of froth on milk were discussed at length,' with frequent amusing interlude:;. John Grieve Ball, auctioneer, and the plaintiff in the action, deposed to having purchased me cow Horn Mr Lange. The animal was an exceptionally good one, giving, at the time of the sale, live to six gallons of milk per day. He never used a dog on file cow, Vliich was a pet, and would come when called. When O’Flaherty rang up complaining that the cow was not giving sufficient milk, witness replied that he did not think she would for me first few days. The use of dogs would also tend to lower the cow’s production. O’Flaherty then offoied £2O to square the deal, but witness would not accept. The drop in the price of stock occurred shortly after the sale had been * completed. Witness was getting 9 and 101 b of butter per week from the cow apart from the cream which was used in the house.

Mr Hill: Why was this cow passed about among all these auctioneers? Witness; I don’t know. Mr Hill: Why did it pass hands so often ?

Witness x,I don’t know, ft was a very good cow. Continuing, witness said that he did not know that dairv-fanners measured their milk by weiglu. When lie sold the cow he expected it to give five or six gallons daily if it was handled properly. He sold the cow because he had had another, one given him. The nature of the warranty came into dispute, witness denying that lie guaranteed the cow’s future production, and asserting that he only guaranteed what it was producing at the time of sale.

Summing up, His Worship said that the counter claim had become the dominant feature of the action, which was based on the nature of the warranty. There was little conflict of evidence, and the case lunged on whether the guarantee given by the plaintiff to defendant related to what the cow had produced in the past, and was producing at the time of sale, or whether it was in regard to the quantity it might he expected to produce in future. His Worship saiu hs was satisfied, that the warranty or guarantee given related only to what the cow had produced, in the past, and it was impossible for the vendor to have guaranteed what the cow would yield in the future. It had not been established that the warranty had been false—it was correct as to the conditions at the time of sale and it was, perhaps, unfortunate that defendant had been unabm personally to test the cow, hut various witnesses had testified as to its good production up to the time of sale. The warranty bad been substantially established, and judgment would he for plaintiff both on the claim and counter-claim, with costs amounting to £8 10s fid.