Liability for Stock.

Manawatu Herald, 4 July 1893, Page 2

Liability for Stock.

The following case, beard in Feilding, is one of much interest to country settlers : — ' ' f T. Hall v. J. Hedge— Claim £6 10s, value of a cow which had been purchased by the plaintiff from defendant, and afterwards destroyed by order of the Stock Inspector as suffering from tuberculosis. 4s was also demanded as costs. of destroying and burying the cow. Mr Sandilands appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Prior for defendant. It appeared that the cow wag purchased by Mr Woolven tor a forward store for the purpose of slaughter, but while in the paddock to be fatted it was noticed that the cow was heavy in calf. After it calved it was handed over to defendant with a commission to sell it at any sum not less than £Q, the de> fendant to retain for himself any sum the oow sold for over that amount. In answer to an advertisement the plaintiff, on the 16th February, called to see the cow and purchased it for £6 10s. After a time the plaintiff placed the cow in the sale yards, but no offer was made for' it, and he offered it for sale by advertisement, instructing his wife, not to sell it for £6 10s. She named the price at £7 to some persons who came to see it Before it could be sold, however, the inspector saw the animal, and ordered its destruction. The plaintiff thereupon demanded a return of the purchase money on the +. assumption that the cow was diseased at the time it was bought. The reason given for this assumption was that it held its head down and breathed with difficulty at the time it was purchased, but the" plaintiff was under the impression the cow had a cold, and had no suspicion there was anything seriously the matter with it. The defendant returned the 10s he had made put of the sale, and referred the plaintiff to Mr Woolven, but the latter refused to take any liability. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant had warranted the cow to be sound.

For the defence it was shown that the cow was in good condition previous to the sale, the witnesses D. Lyne, J. Marshall, H. Woolven, and J. P. Eutherford were of opinion that the cow was in good health, moreover it was denied that any warranty had been given at the time of the sale. In reviewing the case his Worship commented on the fact that the plaintiff had made no complaint to the defendant as to the cow being diseased, also that he had given him ho notice before the cow was actually killed, so that he could have appealed to a justice of the peace against the inspector's order for the destruction of the cow, if the defendant thought fit to take that course. He could not find the defendant liable for the loss of the cow, taking into consideration that the plaintiff had used it for ten weeks without complaint, and the want of proof it was diseased at the time of sale. The plaintiff was non-suited with costs.