CATTLE SALE CLAIM.

Northern Advocate, 6 August 1924, Page 3

CATTLE SALE CLAIM.

" AUCTIONEERS' LIABILITY. QUESTION OF RESPONSIBILITY. John Dinsdale (Mr Thorne) v F. and W. Wakelin (Mr 11. Harrison) was a claim for £<) 10s concerning: four head * of cattle which plaintiff entrusted to F. and W. Wakelin to sell. It was alleged that the defendants received the cattle for an intended sale, but had neither accounted for the sale nor the cattle. Plaintiff in evidence said he wrote to Wakelin in January, 1923. about his cattle. Later Marsden Wakelin called on him and asked him to have the cattle ready for the next sale. A near-by farmer named Windsor called and said he was to take the cattle into the sale and plaintiff said he was to tell Wakelin to sell without reserve, also he was to tell Wakelin to get him two springers in place of the four cattle.

During the month the same Marsden Wakelin called and asked witness what kind of springers he wanted. He replied "just good value,.and instead of two send half a dozen." These were duly delivered after the sale in March, 1923. When the firm billed plaintiff, without giving him credit for his cat-

tie, he called about this in April. They did not know what had become of the cattle and would make inquiries. He paid £20 on account of what lie had bought. The balance was to be a setoff against the cattle, which they wero to trace. A little later in Hikurangi Mr Wakelin said he thougl.t he knew where they were, but he did not find them after all. Later on again Marsden Wakelin told him the firm would allow him for them. Mr Harrison raised the objection that Marsden Wakelin was. not acting as the firm's agent. Witness, continuing, sa : d he claimed a Aery reasonable value for his cattle. He had never heard \nvthi'ig of them nor had the iirm paid him for them. Cross-examined, witness admitted attending auction sales many times, but he had never heard conditions of sale read or seen them posted up until after this case arose. Mnrsden Wakelin, after the sale, had said to him that the cattle must have been sold. He had not been neglectful. The reason why he did not worrv was that he was dealing with a firm of reputation and he never thought there would be any difficulty. He understood that Windsor acted for Wakelin's.

Otto Windsor CRiponui) said that Mar-tdeu Wakelin suggested his calling on Dmsd-'lc who had cattV to co in to

a sale and more than likolv he fwitnoss'\ would get one of Dinsdale's paddocks over-night for his own use. He did so and took Dinsdale's cattle 011 with his own and deliA*ered them to Wakebn at the yards. He .got Is each for his own cows. He could not put a value on- Dinsdale's cattle.

Cross-examined—Ho was not acting as ardent for Wakelin's Avhen he called on Dinsdale. He attended the sale but too late to see his oAvn cattle sold, and he did not see Dinsdale's cattle. Ho remembered that one cow was white, another roan and a third brindle, but he co'uld not remember the colour of the fourth cow.

ALL CARE: NO RESPONSIBILITY.

For the defence it was contended that Marsden Wakelin did not n-ct as nn ap;ent of the firm, that the cattle were not accounted for in the firm's sale books and they knew nothing of them. The auctioneers Avere protected by the ordinary conditions of sale from responsibility, where it was stated they to"k all ''are but undertook no responsibility for stock unless specially ar-rano-ed for and o chanre fixed.

F''«nk Wakelin said he had 710 recollection of a letter from rdaintiff nskilio- the firm to collect cattle. The firm would not bo likolv to send a man to collect store cattle Avhen at that time thev were onlv fetching from 15/ o->eh. The four cattle might have been banded n'-or Avith Windsor's cattle, but he had 110 definite instructions about four cattle, or thev Avould have been picked out, isolated and probably branded. Tn selling it was usual for the auctioneer to ask for the owner. If there A\*as uo owner the cattle Avere passed, unless there Avere special instructions. Unsold cattle were turned out of the pens into the rtadflock after the sale and owners could come when they Avould and take their cattle a\A T ay. Cross-examined—A purchaser after a sale could go into the paddocks and pick out. his own cattle by their brands and "if lie liked could take others." The auctioneer's liability censed after the sale, unless arrangements had been in fide for the firm too take responsiInlitA*. Conditions of sale were posted in four difl'erent places and accepted as read Avhen they Aver" referred to at the beginni""- of each sale.

To the Matcistrate—Cattle for sale were not entered up til] the time of selling, when the auctioneer asked for the owner and if the cattle were claimed Vere entered up at once in the stile book: if not claimed, they Avere not. sold. Accommodation ' paddocks Avere provided for cattle sent in, but the OAvners Avere responsible for them. The auctioneers only took delivery Avhen an owner identified his cattle in a pen. Walter Wakelin produced the sale yard book showing 110 entry of cattle in Dinsdale's "name for the date of the sale in question. .He positively denied that nuA' letter was received by the firm asking them ito collect Dinsdale,'s four cattle.' To the Magistrate- —He could not say IiOAV the instructions came to the firm

to supply Dinsdale with the springers he bought. Marsden Wakelin said Dinsdale asked him about taking some cattle in, but he was not going in with cattle so he mentioned it to Windsor. He did not instruct Windsor. ■ After heaiing legal arguments of counsel on both sides the Magistrate said the matter was interesting and had been exhaustively argued, and in view of the importance of the points raised he would reserve his decision until he had considered the matter further.