SOUND COWS

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume 51, Issue 3139, 13 July 1942, Page 7

SOUND COWS

BUYER & SELLER DIFFER ISSUE DECIDED IN COURT BENCH NON-SUITS THE BUYER “One quarter was a bit light, there was an obstruction in one teat, and the milk from the light quarter was discoloured for a squirt or two and then the rest, two cupfuls, was clean milk.” These were allegations made by a Karaka farmer, Thomas Robert Brunt (Mr A. P. King), against a cow he purchased as guaranteed sound at the Papakura sale on January 6 from C. R. Stokes (Mr S. D. Rice), farmer, of Ardmore. These alleged defects in “Biddy,” the name of the said Jersey cow, were all aired in the Papakura Police Court before Mr F. H. Levien.

Plaintiff claimed the difference between £ll ss, which he paid for “Biddy” and £3 10s, plus damages which he got for her at a later sale the , same month. Plaintiff alleged a breach of warranty. The first witness was Edward Leslie Brodie, the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company’s representative at Papakura. Witness said he acted for defendant Stokes and advertised that defendant was selling 11 choice dairy. cows all sound. Brunt bought four for £43, including “Biddy,” for which he paid £ll ss. He received a letter from Brunt after the sale saying “Biddy” was unsound in one quarter. Witness said he got in touch with defendant Stokes about the matter and defendant said he was prepared to take the cow back if he would deliver her at the saleyards, Papakura, the following Tuesday, one week from the sale. Brunt, in reply, said he was not prepared to bear the expense of about 80s to truck the to Papakura on the said Tuesday, but would deliver it at the next sale which witness said was the usual custom.

Milked at Saleyards

Thomas Robert Brunt, the plaintiff, said the reason he cpuld not bring the cow in on the Tuesday was that he was harvesting. The cow, he said, had little milk that night in the light quarter. Mr Rice: The cow had been milked at 8 o’clock in the saleyards and

could not be expected to give much that night.

Witness said there was an obstruction in another teat like a pin, but admitted it did not prevent him getgetting milk from that quarter. He had a lot of trouble with the cows as they had never been roped or bailed. He complained about the cow’s quarter to the Loan Company at Pukekohe two days after he bought her. Mr Rice: Didn’t you hear Mr Stokes say, “Milk the cows out in the pen and if you are not satisfied, leave them there?” Witness would not admit he heard, him say so. C. R. Stokes said the animal was sound when sold at the sale. Mr Rice: Didn’t one of plaintiff’s sons milk the cows in the pen at the sale? —Witness: Yes. Mr Rice: Was he a good milker? —Plaintiff: An extra good’ milker. Mr Rice: And you received no complaints?—Witness: -None- what; ever. Very Difficult The Magistrate: These farmers’ disputes are very difficult. I remember a separation, case coming before me once arising out of trouble in the cowshed between husband and wife. The wife wanted to milk certain cows the husband wanted to milk and in the end the wife threw a bucket of milk over her husband and he in turn threw a bucket of dirty water over his wife. She alleged cruelty. (Roars of laughter). Witness Stokes continuing said: Plaintiff knew exactly why I was disposing of part of my herd because my son was going into camp. All the cows were sound and I said at the sale if the buyers were not satisfied after they had. milked them they could leave them there.

The Magistrate: Once a man tells me its a sound cow, and guarantees it, that’s the finish. The question is, was the cow sound or not when ho bought it?

The Magistrate then stated that the decision of the Court was that plaintiff would ‘be non-suited.