FENCES ON ROUGH COUNTRY.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXIX, Issue 100, 17 June 1911, Page 5

FENCES ON ROUGH COUNTRY.

A CLAIM FOR SHEEP. At tast week’s sitting of the Magistrate’s Court a start was made witn the case in which P. H. Saxton sued David Hickford for £39 10s—£19 10s for thirty sheep short, mustered after having been grazing on Hickford’s A land and £2O tor loss caused by Jiav•sdngj to . leave the land on a week’s notice instead of a month. Mr Sel-' lar (Hawera) appeared for Saxton and Mr Spense lor Hickford. The hearing was resumed yesterday. Oswald Hawkin, fanner, Hawera. said he held sonic land about sixteen miles further in than Pohokura. He had sheep on the land. If 800 sheep were on four hundred acres of Pohokura land from December to March he Would expect to muster the whole of them, even though they had just been shorn before being put in. He saw the sheep sold in Stratford in April and they were good strong animals. A loss of thirty sheep from four and six tooth wethers was altogether unreasonable. By Mr Spence: Ho had never seen the land in question, but ho would give an opinion about it. Percy Henry Saxton, sheep farmer, Matau, the, plaintiff, gave evidence that he had worked among sheep for the best part of his life. He had farmed at Meremero, where the land was very similar to the land at Pohokura. Early in December last witness asked Hickford about grazing. It was decided that three-far-things a head be charged. Witness asked that Hickford should agree not to order the removal of the sheep at short notice. Hickford said the fences '\weie sheep-proof. He said witness /could have the grazing until the place, was sold, and if it was sold it ■would have to go through the agents’ hands, and that would take at least a mouth. Witness bought IUSO four and six tooth wethers about December 22nd. The sheep were put on Hickford’s place the next day, having been ear-marked previously. Eight hundred of the sheep wore left on Hickford’s, the residue, the smaller sheep, being taken to witness’ place at Matau. ' Tho sheep left at Hickford’s were two and, three year sheep, and they were in their prime. They were so strong that they pushed the yard fences over. Four hundred were placed in one paddock and the remainder in another. Witness inspected the sheep on a number of occasions. Once ho thought some needed shifting, and after a conversation with Mrs. Hickford, Mr, Hickford being absent, he put them in a paddock across tho road. This was on February Ist. At they time the sheep were in good condition. When tire sheep were left in December there wore only ’ about thirty sheep of Hickford’s on the land. Hickford ’ said that these were tho only ones on the place. Witness presumed that he had the right to graze over the whole farm.. Witness visited '■ the sheep about every fortnight. Ho did not see any dead ones. About March 20tfi the whole of tho sheep were mustered for dipping purposes. There were forty-one missing. Hickford, who helped with the mustering, said he had left ten in one paddock. Witness thought he had got a clean muster. On March 28th witness received notice from, Hickford to remove his sheep in a week. Witness went Over to see Hickford and said ho was surprised at receiving only a week’s notice/when ho had been promised a month. Hickford said that perhaps ho had promised a month’s notice, but he had a good opportunity to lease the whole of the farm. Nobody else wasrpresent ; during this, conversation. . The , sheep were removed on Saturday, April loth. There was thou a further conversation regarding notice, at ivhich one Chapman was present. After the sheep were mustered witness said -to Hickford that he had not been treated fairly as regards notice. Hickford said witness’- sheep were not. eating tho grass from the whole of the property, and as he had a good offer to lease tho whole he had decided to do so. A week after receiving notice 'witness wont to Hickford’s to get tho sheep. Hickford was absent. Later on Hickford telegraphed to witness to take his sheep off and witness and Hickford mustered them in company with Chapman. The sheep were counted by witness and Hickford, both making the total 770. Hickford and Chapman said they got the same coifnt. The sheep were taken over to Matau and were then sold in

Stratford by Mr Newton King at \ 12s lid each. In the road fence at V- Hiekford’s there were several holes, ' and the bottom wire was about 12 to 15 inches from the ground. Witness wont, over the fences with the witness Piper. He could corroborate all Piper said. A piece of fence between Nathan and Hickford, which Piper had seen lying down, had recently been repaired, three posts being put in. On one occasion witness saw live of his sheep on the road, and again he got eighteen of his' sheep • on the farm of a neighbour named Allen. Hickford saici he had put about two hundred of the sheep in off the road. Hickford said he thought the sheep had been out for some time, neighbours riding past but saying nothing about it. If lie had known about thorn being out ho would have put them in, ho said, even if ho had to do it 1 yy moonlight. In witness’ opinion'the sheep got on the road and had wandered away. During the-time the sheep were on the land, two other lots of sheep wore put- in to graze. One lot went, into a paddock in which there were a number of witness’ sheep, the other lot being put into a separate paddock.. Witness got notice of the removal of one lot of sheep. He had seen some of his sheep among the sheep grazed in an adjoining paddock by one Coates. Witness found tbo sliprails between the paddocks down. Ho fixed them up and mentioned the matter to Mrs Hickford. Hickford’s fences were not sheep-proof and were not reasonably sheep-proof.' Thirteen shillings was a reasonable price for the sheep lost. If witness had not had to sell his sheep when ho did ho could have sold them hotter—probably ho could have got sixpence each more. On April 15th after the mustering had been done Hickford said he had not seen any dead sheep. ■ Witness saw ho dead sheep. The class of sheep were not liable to get killed on the property. By Mr Spence: Witness did not know that sheep wore falling after witness’ sheep were sold. He did not know that sheep were sixpence cheaper a week later; The provision for . notice to quii was an essential part of the contract, as witness would 'not [*.!; have bought the sheep if he were not sure of notice. The. month’s notice was an actual inducement to witness to buy the sheep. Witness asked Hickford for a receipt for the sheep. In the receiot there was no mention of notice. Witness forgot to have it inserted. He asked the Court to believe that when ho got the receipt ho forgot to see about this provision which ho thought" was so important. When he afterwards found out about it ho did not/think it necessary to have it put in—lie trusted to Hickford’s word. He said nothing about notice until lie was ordered to vacate the land. Hickford gave witness have to shift the sheep round

as ho desired. A total of 399 choc, wore put in the patnlock about i.. bad fences of which evidence had boo. given. • The muster at dipping tiim was not. a clean one. It was a bat one. He returned his sheep to tin paddocks because he thought tlu missing sheep were there. Mr cjponco: Why don’t you think they’re there now ? witness, continuing, said ho had not mustered the paddocks more thai once when leaving the place because Hickford put another lot of sheep oi. the land just when witness left. ii. his, opinion it was tho duty of the party letting grazing to muster. Witness would not bo surprised to know that somo pf his sheep had beer, found, alive ’ on the property—the whole of them might be there. Hi knew, the property well. ite-examiucci; His sheep were tbs posed of at a clearing sale, all oi which were advertised for a month It was quite possible that the twe live sheep of ids said* to bo on tm property might have re-entered the paddock through a hole in the fence—the whole of the missing sheep might have done so. . Tnomas Arthur Chapman, sheep farmer, Matau, gave evidence regard ing tho final muster. He did no, flunk a single sheep was missed. He had seen- no dead sheep. itnesi had two hundred acres of his own ai Matau, and he also managed SOU acre.* for another party. A loss ol thirty out of 800 sheep was unreasonable, especially for the summer months. AV lien leaving the place Saxton salt. he presumed he was not expected ti pay until the missing sheep tunica up. Hickford said lie wanted payment at once. Hickford’s fences weu nothing like sheep-proof. j3y Mr Spence: The muster foi dipping was just as careful as the one carried out when the place wat loft. ' . , , , ii V the Bench: If witness had sheep short mustered ho would see the owner of the paddock regarding anotiiei muster —he would not expect him to take the first step. William Henry Stockley, shceplarmer, Kioro, said ho had inspected Hickford’s fences on the previous Wednesday. On the river boundary lucre were three places where then were logs across tne stream. Sheep could got across these logs, and then was evidence that they had dune so. Speaking generally, the fences v. ere in had order. Ho would expect to list only one per cent of lour and six toothi wethers on such land. In mustering he would expect to miss abo-at half a dozen —thirty was an unreason able number to miss in mustering.

MV Mr. Spence: If or tho past twe months witness had been working on his brother’s sheep farm. ITcvbus t> that ho had chiefly been engaged in carrying. lids closed the case for tho plaintiff. , . > Mr: Spence was given leave to cab ono witness before the Co lit adjourned. Alexander McMullian, si eepfarmer, Mdtau, said he had grazed 9-16 sheep on Hickford’s place from I l ’, b r.aiy 18th to March 22nd of tins year. Witness was not well enough infoiuicd about the country to say -/bother oi not it was usual to have farms i lagfenced. When ho muster,.* I lis sheep to take them away he i named 110 lie paid for grazing for t 1 ? full number of bis sheep. After taking hit sneep off the place he made an offer to lease tho whole of. it lor. six months. He was quite s.utistbd with what Hickford had done for biin. The country in the vicinity was-high, aac there was considerable scrub and fern. The sheep he was grazing wu\ two and four tooth ewes. If thirty were lost out of eight hundred in foili ‘months witness would regard oho lost as satisfactory. When Saxton’s sheep were brought in' for dipping Saxton said ho had had a good muster, ho.rg only four short in one paddock. At this point tho case was adjourned to June 30th.