SUPREME COURT

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVIII, Issue 212, 6 August 1928, Page 6

SUPREME COURT

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. DRAFTING OF LAMBS. Before Mr Justice Smith at the Supreme Court this morning the tear: in<r took place of a case wherein V\ 11 liam David Williamson, of Taunmrunui farmer, and lus wife, Charlotte Williamson, proceeded against Sims, Cooper 1 and Co. (N.Z.) Ltd claiming £132 3s 8d as damages for losses sustained through allegedly negligent drafting of lambs. . Mr Loughnan, with him Mr bra ham. appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr Cooper for defendant company. , The statement of claim set out that plaintiffs engaged defendants in Apn': 1927, to dratt certain lambs at iaonui and to pick out such as were fat and suitable for freezing, defendants undertaldng to do so .and to purchase the lambs so drafted “on the hooks at the price then prevailing for tat lambs for export. Plaintiffs instructed defendant company that the iambs were to be carefully drafted and were to average plaintiffs at least £1 P er head. Defendant company, it was alleged, drafted the lambs in such a negligent manner that a large number, on being killed, were classed as “canners,” and plaintiffs, instead o being credited with the price per pound weight of fat lambs were ere - ited with only the rate per pound weight paid for “canners, plus the price allowed for the skins; wherefore plaintiffs sought to recover as damages the sum of £132 3s 8d made up as follows: Loss oil 43 lambs classed as “canners,” £32 18s 7d; loss on nine lambs classed as “canners, £7 /s Ki, loss on 252 lambs classed as seconds, £4B 15s 6d; loss on 175 lambs winch realised los, £43 2s 6d. , . , The statement of defence denied that defendant company were engaged to draft the lambs and agreed to purchase same. It was further denied that any .agent of theirs had drarter the lambs, and, if it were proved that the lambs had been drafted by a person purporting to be an agent, it was denied that lie had been negligent or /.iat plaintiffs had suffered any dam'll! evidence, William David Williamson stated that he had two farms —one at Feilding and the other at Te Kuiti. Last April he had .approximately 1000 lambs on the two places, of which about 500 were on the J? eilcling property. Meeting a fat. stpek buyer for defendant company in the Feilding stockyards, he told him that he had a number of lambs on rape and ascertained from him what prices were being offered. He told tlie agent, Garlick by name, that he wanted the lambs to average £1 per piece, and, oil this being agreed to, Garlick agreed to go out to plaintiff s property and draft lambs that would realise this price. W itness was to send down from the Te Kuiti property some of the lambs there, and Garlick was to draft these also. Witness told Garlick that he would advise him by telephone from Taumarunui when to do the drafting. Later Garlick advised him that he had been out to the property and had found tlio lambs doing well. Garlick added that he would bo able to get .a good draft away. Witness then told him to go ahead, but to make sure that only the best were picked out. It was further arranged that the To Kuiti lambs should be railed after the first draft had been made on the Feilding property. Witness- actually came down with these lambs and put them on to the farm, where those lambs left out of the draft bv Garlick still were. The latter totalled about 170. while those from Te Kuiti numbered 392. After he had returned to Taumarunui, he learned that Garlick had made his second draft, taking 480 lambs. Knowing that there were not this number on the property in good enough condition for freezing, witness promptly wired to both Garlick and defendant company instructing them to hold his lambs as they were not taken in accordance with his instructions. Later, he had .advised defendant company that, unless his loss was compensated for, he would take legal action. Defendant company wrote back saying that the drafting had been done not by Garlick but by witness’s brother. In witness’s opinion only 350 of the 480 lambs taken were suitable for drafting. Witness’s brother had a farm of his own and had no authority to do any drafting for plaintiffs. To Mr Cooper: Witness had had considerable experience of fat stock buying. The arrangement ivith Garlick was that defendant company were to pay railage charges on all stock bought. The prices paid for fat stock by the buying company varied according to the freezing works to which the stock was sent. He denied that he had spoken to Garlick about the first draft only, and that the Te Kuiti draft had never been mentioned. He admitted that, some time ago, he had drafted 342 lambs for another farmer, and that 111 of these'had been rejected. When he had sent the Te Kuiti lambs down he had told his brother that some of them were not suitable for freezing and had been forwarded only to make up the trucks. Only a few lambs died on the way down. H© denied that he had told Garlick that his brother would look after the stock for them, or that it was the usual practice for farmers, when their stock was being drafted to be present or to be represented. Witness’s brother had not been present at the first drafting as witness’s representative, and, on being questioned shortly after the second drafting, had denied that he had done the drafting, saying that Garlick had been solely responsible. Later, he admitted that he had done the drafting, and stated that Garlick had made him promise trat he would not let witness think that anyone else than Garlick had done the drafting. „ ~ Charlotte Williamson, wife of the previous witness, gave corroborative evidence concerning the arrangements between her husband and Garlick. Walter Edward Barber, of Himatangi, farmer, deposed that it was the practice for drafting to be done by an agent of the purchasers. Selling on tlie hooks” was quite a usual arrangement. A competent draftsman would have no difficulty in selecting lambs to return an average of £1 per piece. Plaintiff’s returns showed that some of the lambs should never have been drafted. Tlio Court then adjourned for lunch.