SUPREME COURT

Manawatu Standard, Volume L, Issue 139, 12 May 1930, Page 8

SUPREME COURT

SHEEPBREEDER’S CLAIM. CASE AGAINST ASSOCIATION FAILS. A case of considerable interest to sheep breeders was heard before His Honour the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, in the Palmerston North Supreme Court this morning when William Evisnn Rayner, sheep farmer, of Masterton, proceeded against the New Zealand Romney Marsh Sheep Breeders’ Association. It was contended that plaintiff's Romney stud flock, said to be one of the largest in New Zealand, had been wrongfully expunged from the Stud Book of the association, and an order was requested to have it reinstated. Plaintiff also claimed £SOO damages. Mr Biss, of Masterton, appeared for plaintiff and Mr Cooper for the defendant association. STATEMENT OF CLAIM. It was set out in the statement of claim that plaintiff was a member of the association and had registered his flock as 105 in the flock book. About July 10 the society had advised him that a commit tee of inspection, comprising Messrs A. S. Holms, A. S. Murray and J. Miller, had boon appointed to inspect his flock. The report of tho inspection committee stated that Mr Rayner’s flock had been inspected to ascertain if Corriedale blood had been introduced. After a careful investigation there were found among 73i breeding ewes about threo per cent showing Corriedale characteristics and about two per cent, doubtful, 274 ram hoggets showing about the same percentage and 336 ewe hoggets with about five per oent. showing decided Corriedale characteristics and two or three per cent, doubtful. Otherwise the flock was up to a fair standard, but would be greatly improved by heavier culling. It was further alleged in the statement of claim that the plaintiff die. not attend the meeting of tho council of the society held on August 29, 1923, but on August 27, he wrote to the president of the society denying that his Romney sheep showed any trace of Corriedale blood. In spite of this, the secretary of the association had advised that it had been unanimously resolved to expunge the flock from the flock book. It was pointed out that this action was taken under rule 43 of the association, which read as follows : “The council may appoint one or more competent men in such districts as they may consider necessary, who shall be an infection committee, and shall inspect and count flocks whenever instructed by the council. Should those inspectors consider any such flock not fairly representative oi its kind, the council may expunge the said flock from the Flock Book.”

It wasset out in tho claim that since the plaintiff had received this letter he had made endeavours to have the resolution purporting to expunge the flock rescinded, but the society hud refused to do this, and in accordance with its resolution had written to all its members advising them o, the action taken. It was contended that, in passing such a resolution, the council of tho society had acted ultra vires, and did not act in accordance with its rules and regulations, in that the inspectors did not give to the council the type of report contemplated by the rule quoted, and entitling the council to expunge a register ed flock from the flock book. The alternative contention was advanced that the council did not act bona fide and in accordance with the principles of natural justice in that it passed the resolution without first giving to the plaintiff reasonable notioe of the charge, if any, made against him, and without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard in his defence. Plaintiff asked, through his counsel, that the Court should declare the flock to be still registered, and that an order be made to the society, further, that the society should be restrained by in junction from interfering with the registration of the flock. Judgment was also asked for £SOO damages. CASE FOR PLAINTIFF.

nl opening tho case, Mr Biss said that Rayner had founded his flock in 1904 when it was registered, - and it was now recognised as one of tho largest in New Zealand, containing over 700 breeding ewes. Counsel gave particulars of tho characteristics of Romney and Corriedale sheep, and suggested tho possibility of a throw-back from many generations ago from the Merino, or a sheep with Merino characteristics. The percentage of sheep in the flock having alleged Corriedale characteristics was not unusual in such a large flock. They were obviously tho poorer quality of sheep. His Honour: If these sheep were culled, It would have saved a lot of trouble. Mr Biss: It was not tho correct time to do this. His Honour: If these sheep were culled, surely it would bo possible to reinstate the flock? Mr Biss: It cannot be re-registered under the rules of the society. Mr Biss went on to describo the manner in which tho inspection had been carried out. Rayner had been in Auckland at the time, and the arrangements had been made by his stud mastor. His Honour: Raynor should have been present. Mr Biss: Tho inspection was a cursory one, and the percentages were arrived at roughly. It is contended that the report was not what it purported to bo. The inspectors misunderstood the position. Mr Biss added that such action was of great harm to Rayner, as he would havo to sell his sheep as “flock sheep,” which would command a lower price. ORIGIN OF FLOCK. Plaintiff, in evidence, said that ho owned Corricdalo, Romney and Lincoln flocks separately. His father had had the Corriedale and Lincoln flocks before him. Tho Romney flock was registered in 1904 in the flock book, he purchasing the foundation stock from Mr G. Wheeler. One of the owes was of fine wool, finer, in fact, than the Romney, and had Merino characteristics. These were closer wool and a distinguishing face, a rosult of tho society’s action tho price of his sheep had been affected, and whereas he had received in previous years up to 105 guineas for stud rams, ho nwo got only 18gns for flock rams.- On stud rams he had lost not loss than 15 to 20gns each, and on other sheep 39gns. Describing tho characteristics of tho various breeds witness said that Merino and Corriedale characteristics were often found in purbred Romneys, such as dense wool, pink noso and tho Merino dewlap. Such characteristics did not prevent a flock from being typical Romney. VALUE OF REGISTRATION. Replying to questions by Mr Coopor plaintiff said that registration was a valuable privilege and was a guarantee that tho stock was pure. It was of the groat-, cst importance to stud breeders that the flock 3 should bo pure.- He denied having received complaints of his stock not being truo to type and had been astonished when ho first heard of the trouble. Ho made no suggestion of dishonesty in. the inspection committee, but they were South Island breeders and wero accustomed to a different typo of sheep. Ho had admitted to the association that he had used a Corriedale ram at one stage, but ho contended that all signs of Corriedale had subsequently been culled. He denied that it was the general opinion of stud breeders that once a foreign strain was introduced into a purebred flock there was an uneradicablo taint. Mr Cooper: You think there was no danger to your flock when you put the Corriedalo ram to it?—Not a bit. Mr Cooper: It is true that Argentine buyers pay good prices for purebred Romney sheep. Would this market not bo affected if it wero known that there was ono flock in New Zealand, guaranteed by the association, which showed a decided percentage of Corriedale blood ?—Yes, if there were one. Mr Cooper: Then any registered flock should be above suspicion?—Yes, and mine is pure. Replying to further questions, plaintiff said it was possible for different breeds of sheep to get through the fences, but lie took the greatest care, and had strong fences. He was positive that no Corriedale ram had got among the Romneys. His Honour: You cannot be sure, as you were not there all the time. Plaintiff: I havo good men. Replying to a, series of questions by His Honour, plaintiff admitted that ho was aware that tho report of the inspectors was condemnatory. David Walker, studmaster of plaintiff’s flock, said that when the inspection was I

carried out the hoggets tof the three breeds were running together in tho same paddock. He had seen the report subsequent to its presentation. If any Romney flock had the percentage of sheep showing Corriedalo characteristics, it could still be regarded as being a sound flock. As a result of the report plaintiff had been unable to sell his rams. Sixteen might have been sold as stud sheep and fetched 14gns to 15gns. Had they been sold actually ns stud sheep they would havo realised 40 gns each. Other sheep had sold at a correspondingly lower rate. Mr Cooper: Would you, if you intended to buy stud stock, purchase from a flock that you knew had ben reported by three men to have Corriedale characteristics ? No. Mr Biss: What do you do with lambs born with Corriedale characteristics ? —They are generally culled out. John Stringfellow, of Greytown, who has been a stud breeder for 29 years, who has judged sheep at the Royal and other shows in New Zealand, and is at present the owner of a Corriedale flock, said that Corriedale characteristics in Romneys were noticeable as closer wool, pink nose, horn and a dewlap. He agreed with the previous witness that he would not buy stud sheep from a herd with such characteristics. ■ Mr Biss: You would if the doubtful sheep were culled ?—Certainly. His Honour: That is the whole point. Why were not the sheep culled at the time of the inspection ? Witness: It is not usual to cull until after shearing. Alfred B. Cottle, of Masterton, a Romney breeder, agreed that any flock with the percentages quoted in the report could be regarded as being fairly representative of the breed. He would certainly not purchase sheep from such a flock in view of the statement that they contained five per cent, of Corriedale characteristics. He estimated plaintiff’s loss through his flock being expunged at £I4OO. Evidence on similar lines was given by Alfred Percy Southey, stud breeder, of Masterton. Mr Cooper submitted that there was no case to answer. Hi 3 Honour: I do not think there is. Mr Cooper: I do not intend to call evi-. dence. His Honour: Do you wish to address the Court ? Mr Cooper: I do not think it is nccessary. Mr Biss quoted authorities in support of his case. His Honour: I fear I cannot help Mr Rayner. though I sympathise with him. There is no suggestion of fraud of any kind against him. The notice gave sufficient particulars to indicate that the action was contemplated, and also sufficient opportunity for him to make an explanation. Mr Rayner knew what was required of him, and according to the law i can give him no relief. Judgment was accordingly entered for defendant, with costs against plaintiff as on a claim for £SOO.