SALE OF A COW.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 16211, 23 August 1923, Page 6

SALE OF A COW.

—n» QUESTION OF WARRANTY. The case concerning an alleged breach of warranty in respect to a cow, was continued in the Magistrate's Court this afternoon. On resuming, the defendant. Wilson was cross-examined• by Mr. Hill. He said that ha did not think it necessary to get the guarantee in writing. As- it turned out he wasi taking a risk when he did not ask for the written guarantee. It was quite impossible for the cow to have aborted from the time of the sale until tbo time at which it arrived at his station. To Mr. Blair defendant) said that actually his dispute was with Walker, not, with Common,'Shelton and Co.

William Charles Bull, farmer, of Waikohu, gavo evidence that the value of the cow was 30s.'

On bdhalf of Walker, Mr. Hill submitted that the whole point of the ease was as to whether it WOa a sale, by description or not.- If it xv.ete not a sale by descriptio.ii' then Wilson had no ehancfc of .succeeding. If, however, it were a said by description then Wilson could repudiate the. contract. Walker bad innocently stated that tiio cow was in calf. Wilson went to buy u cow, and lie actually did buy a cow; certainly lie did not buy as valuable a cow us b« had expected to buy. Mr. Hill contended that it had not been proved that the cow could not be got into l calf. Mr. Hill quoted a large number of authorities upon warranty cases and sales by description. If the purchaser intended to rely upon a warranty, he ■bould have obtained it in writing. This was not a sale by description, and Wilson would have to show that'it was a sale by description before ho could succeed. Evidence was given by Eetcin«3d George Grittom, who said that he had fho cow in his car© for nbout 11 weeks prior to the sale. During that time nhe did not. como into treason and he believed at the time of the sale that she was in calf.—(Proceeding.)