TURF GOSSIP.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1217, 28 June 1895, Page 22

TURF GOSSIP.

By " Gipsy King."

RESPONSIBILITY OF STUD MASTERS

During last covering season Mr John Cotter of Ashurst sent his thoroughbred mare Caller Herrin (Hippocampus—Sissie), dam of Banner, Gold Cup and Ben Varry, on a visit to Mr Robert Ross' thoroughbred stallion Megaphone, at Wanganui. Shortly after arrival at Wanganui the mare gave birth to a colt foal by Vanguard, consequently a full brother to Ben Varry. Some time after the end of the season the mare and foal were sent by rail to Ashurst, and when they arrived, both the mare and foal were in a very weak condition, the foal dying a day or so after arrival, from *' exhaustion and starvation and other ills, combining to produce congestion of the lungs," as proved by the evidence given in court. Mr Cotter, after going to so much expense in sending the mare away, was naturally very much annoyed at receiving the mare back in such a state, and brought an action against Mr Ross, claiming Ll5O damages. The case caused much interest and was fully reported by the Wanganui papers, but is too voluminous to reprint in these columns. There were a large number of witnesses on each side, the defence mainly being that the foal was subject to mengrims gers") and that it was tbis ailment that caused the death of the foal. A further defence was that in "Megaphone's " stallion card, Mr Ross notified that "all care would be taken of mares, but no responsibility." It wilJ be news to stud-masters to learn that Judge Kettle considers such notification has ho legal effect. It is quoted on all stallion cards, but it evidently does not release the owners of stallions from treating mares as they would treat their own.

'lbis case opens up the question as to whether owners, who keep stud horses for public patronage, provide sufficient accommodation for the number of mares with foals that are sent to the stallions. I know of several stallion owners who <lo not provide ■ anything like sufficient paddocking for mares. One reason is that it is a very difficult matter to get a suitable paddock in a central position at anything likfe a reasonable rental, and as the studmasters are seldom able to recover paddocking fetes,'they do not study the owners of mares as they otherwise would do. In facfcfcVthe low fees charged for stallion seryicies, it would not pay a studmaster to rent a large area for grazing purposes. However* it simply amounts to this, if a studmaster doe* not own, or cannot afford to rent, suitable paddocks, well grassed and watered, and of sufficient acreage to carry the number of mares sent to his stallion, he should not solicit the pationage of the public. I regret that this case has come into court in more ways than one. The principal effect itgmay have on many breeders will be to discourage them from sending their mares to the best stallions, and cause them to breed from ary stallion that happens to be travelling in their particular district, regardless of blood lines, etc. I understand overtures were made to Mr Ross to settle the matter out of court, but this he declined to do. Judge Kettle, in delivering judgment, went fully into the case, reviewing the voluminous evidence from start to finish, finally giving his judgment on Monday as follows: " Plaintiff, a sheep farmer at Ashurst, sued the defendant, a livery stable keeper in Wanganui, to recover damages for injury done to a mare and loss of a foal, through the alleged negligence of defendant. He alleges that defendant did not feed the mare properly, the pasture of the paddock not being sufficient for her maintenance; that he neglected to keep her in proper condition after foaling ; and that he sent away the foal in a weak state—unfit to be sent a long distance by train. With regaid to the contract between the parties, His "Worship maintained that Mr Boss was bound to take all reasonable care of animals entrusted to him, and to treat them in the same way as he would treat his own animals. As a proprietor of stallions be was bound to exercise all care and caution in providing proper food for mares, and generally attend to them. As to the card put in by defendant, on which was advertised that all care would be taken, but no responsibility, Mr Kettle held that a man could not legally get out of the responsibility. It had no legal effect whatever, and the condition repudiating responsibility was void, and could not release Mr Boss of his liability in taking care of the animals. It became a question of fact only whether proper care and diligence was shown. He was satisfied the mare was in good condition when she arrived in Wanganui, and that the foal waa a fair specimen. Three weeks after foaling, the mare showed signs of mengrim.

Evidence showed that the mare was uneasy and suffering, and nothing was done to save her, and that they were returned by train to Ashurst without any food being Bent

with them, the foal then suffering from scours. It was only reasonable to expect that Mr Ross should have sent a telegram earlier on the morning he returned the mare. The evidence as to the arrival of the mare and foal at Ashurst showed that they were in a very bad condition. The foal died from exhaustion and starvation, and other ills, combining to produce conjestion of the lungs. The charge of starving the mare in the paddock was not proven, but His Worship held that as regards the treatment of the mare after she foaled, and in sending the mare and foal away in the condition in which they were, Mr Ross failed in his duty. Evidence showed that the mare should have been milked when Mr Ross saw that she was uneasy. Mr Kettle said that Mr Ross had failed in his duty to Mr Cotter in sending away the foal without proper notice, and Mr Ross was responsible for the damages There was a difficulty with regard to assessing the amount, the evidence thereon being entirely speculative. lie would limit the damage to the value of the colt when it died and to the condition of the mare when returned. He would give judgment for L4O, Court costs L2 19e, fee L2 12s, and expenses.