A DAIRYMAN'S DISPUTE.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 11842, 4 May 1909, Page 5

A DAIRYMAN'S DISPUTE.

:-.' Thomas Weeks (Mij G. Stock) sued Philip f Miller (Mr L. T. Burnard) a$ the Magistrate's Court this niorning to recover £3 15s damages alleged to nave been sustained through a" cow which ' plaintiff bought from defendant not yielding the quuntity bf milk which she Avas guaranteed to do.. - '■;-•..- „.. -.-.i ! Plaintiff stated that m cpngeqqence of seeing an advertisement ia a, n^AfK- ' paper he w£\n£ to defendants- place and inspected a cow. Defendant's Avife ,saiq the -cow gave 16 quarts bf milk a dty* * and the price avus £7.- Later defend*ant came to him and guaranteed the cow Avottld yield J. 6 quarts of milk a day. . Witness said he was riot anxious to buy the cow, and would give ah answer the following Wednesday. €)n that day Avitnete bought the coav for £6. She was put m a paddock of good feed, but only yielded 10 quarts, arid •liter on she gave 12 quarts. Consequently witness saw defendant, -. but he refused to take the cow back. He put her m the sale and sold her; for £3 -Ps. He would not have bought the coAy. if the guarantee had not been given. By Mr Burnard: When defendant went to witness he Aad not mention the price. After seeing witness defendant offered the cow to a neighbor at a lower .price. ''''''," -n Leo Norman Weeks and Francis Weeks, sons of tiie plaintiff, also'- gave evidence respecting the negotiations at the time the cowJ was bought, and John Greentree testified! fo buying the cow m question at the Matawhero saleyardK The cow oqly yielded _tivo gallons of milk a day, and he hardly thought that she ever would have yielded 16 quarts. -,- Mr Bur-na r d • cla imed , that from the evidence adduced the defendant was entitled to a nonsuit. Defendant* offer on' the Monday to guarantee the cow at a price ' of £7 was refused, and on the Wednesday plaintiff entered into a contract himset( by offering £6.-^-His Woi?fihip overruled counsel on this point. Defendant stated that he fold plaintiff he wanted £7 for the cow, and that he thought she would give 14 to }t> nuarte a day on good feed. Plaintiff said he would use his own judgment m that matter. He did not Avant to buy the coav particularly, as he wnf.*'*™,' 1 of feed. On the Wednesday plaintiffs boy came fo Avitness' place with £6, «avinjr that that was all liis father woula clve. Witness said; that as, hi? wife was ill and he had no time to milk the cow he would let plaintiff haye her for £6. but would give no guarantee as u> ouility or quantity. Eighteen monUy* previous tbe coav gave 16 .quart* -a dajk but be had not measured the? quantity hitr^rlv, , • y A..L By Mr Stock: The paddock plaintiff put the cow m was not suitrtbfe • far cattle. When plaintiff complained -about the cow riot giving 16 quarts.v witness fold him she had not settled down, and also that he had not given any gtiaranted. Richard Boyd gave evidence to sellwifc 1 the cow m qudstion, with a number of othere, to defendant 12 mouths ago. .When m full profit she then yielded SibQtit 18 quarts a day. < Mrs Miller, wife of defendant, aLso •waVe evidence respecting the sale negotiations, and the quantity of milk tlie • ooW yielded. , His Worship said he Avas satisfied defendant did guarantee that the coav would yield 16 quarts, but she had not riven near that quantity. Judgment would bo for plaintiff for amount claimed arid grazing £3 17s, and costs £2 15s.