WHOSE HEIFER?

Northern Advocate, 4 November 1913, Page 4

WHOSE HEIFER?

DISPUTE BETWEEN FARMERS,

Alexander Ewing Hoey and Josephine Charlotte Hoey, settlers, Puwera, sued James Sands, settler, Puwera, for the recovery of one brindle roan heifer, valued at £7, which plaintiffs

said in their statehient of claim was taken by defendant on or about September 27th. Damages of £1 for detention were also claimed. Mr H. D. Harrison appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr T. H. Steadman for defendant.

Alexander Hoey stated that the heifer, which was now in possession of defendant, had been reared by him.. It had natural marks on the ear—a sort of half-mcon on top. The ear m ark ran through a strain of cattle reared at Maungakaramea. During the dry season the heifer had been turned out on to gum land between witness's and defendant's farms. Witness found defendant in possession of the animal in September, and he refused to give it up. He said he had bought it from one Tavinor. Defendant got excited when asked to give up the beast, and threatened to strike witness.

To Mr Steadman: The gum land was used by all the settlers in the for running their cattle. He w__m be prepared to give £7 for the annHR if it were not his.

Mrs J. C. Hoey said the heifer was reared by plaintiffs. She had no doubt of the heifer's identity.

Constable Condon gave evidence-— lhat the defendant told him that the heifer was one of five he had bought from Tavinor. He had sold four and only the one remained. He said it had Tavinor's ear mark—V. Mr Hoey asked defendant to leave the heifer on the road to see if it would go home to his (Hoey's ) place. Defendant refused to do this, and the parties decided to take the case to court.