CRAZING RESPONSIBILITIES.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXIX, Issue 111, 1 July 1911, Page 7

CRAZING RESPONSIBILITIES.

CLAIM FOB LOST SHEEP. On Juno Utli Mr. Kenrick, Sad., eoauaeneetl tne .hearing m ine .Viagmirate's f.oint or actions in ii'uit.. j./uia i-iickionl (j/ohokuinucl 1 ere; oa.vtoa (.in;; tan) made Claims in re or sncep or Saxton s u moil nok graaoU on jiK’kioixi s farm. m,. ..•pouce appeared lor Ilickford,’ urn,. . iiii'. Sciiar (Jciawera) for Saxton. •i licku'ncl ctuiilKxi £id (.six weeks grazing between ala ecu ora and, April ■ r.otii for I>UU rmeejT at j}-d pcr'iivaU 'peV woeK), and ;ii.i lor wonc ooue in ulus- ' cerma;. _ _ : ; , Saxton claimed ;£I9 10s, the value yf, thirty shee’p at l3s each, whim, siiot-p it was admitted hole snort He ti y;ored 'when me dock was ’tiiltoii' oil Hicuxfdrd’s ' land. lie also 'chumcu £2O, being damages ->r haying 1 hay to vacate tiie land on j. week’s, notice, instead of a month's, as it was alleged was agreed upon. The hearing was not completed qp, Juno 9fch, and was continued oh thy, tilth, on which date it was still unfinished, and was adjourned till yesterday. Mr. Spence opened his case on June loth, and examined Alexander MeMuliian, whose" cross-examination was proceeded with when the case was called on yesterday. In answer to Mr. Sellar, witness said that the loss of thirty sheep out of nine hundred in a month was fairly large. Saw about, ten dead. Saxton’s sheep were good strong wethers. Between ten and twenty was a reasonable.loss as regard;?, Raxten’s sheep. There was always an clement of luck in such things,.,.The crook boundary of the paddock .was. he thought, sheep-proof., The, .creek was fairly deep. Hie had never carefully inspected it. By Mr. Spence: Numbers of sheep were lost," biff 'were never seehi ! ; >M.{ To tlie Bench; The paddocks were iiiily, and there was much fern and • logs on them. David Hickford, the defendant, ■ farmer, Pohokura, said Saxton was given the right to graze on two paddocks. The country-had a-number of creeks running through it. There was a good deal of timber and scrub about, and there were numbers of holes made by springs. The paddock at the house Was not fenced at the back. Re did not know of any property in the district which was ring-fenced. On T’a hr nary 'l7 th Saxton moved the sheep into another paddock on which no had no right to graze. About February 2-tth witness found about two hundred of the sheep on the road, Having got out of the paddock. Witness them down towards a gate across "he road. This was about nightfall. I& the morning lip, put cue sheep back in the paddock'. Re went round the paddock and found that the sheep had got out by pushing away a log from the fence. He ■ replaced the log. The boimjat y was sheep-proof., Thera, was a ' log over it, but there was ,a bush fence at one end, and a,clump'pf lawyers at the other end. "paxton used toj call over :ui,Tut once.'every ‘three weeks and go niniid thepsheep. Whei\ "the agreement was” made, nothing " was said about' a mouth’s notice of intention to shift the sheep beingigiven oy witness. Olr March 27th .Saxton was given a week in, \yliich to remove, the sheep, j rt but they werg ,jipt taken away before April 15th. After oho sheep were tallied on April 15th account, lie; said he would pay for tiie grazing when witness recovered tiie thirty sheep short, .gpd not before. Witness said that i|ii«j|ut. case it,(would be necessary Ron-gp. to law. S.jxton said witness-:, -h af tf > promised inuina month’s npticsjcohut witness dlmied having done so„o[jLatoly the land :had -■eon occupied jipuslieep : belonging: Ho -me Henderson;- (! Whon these siiosp were in for clutching witness found thirteen of Saxton’s sheep among them... A good ideal of, grazingi had taken place on the property,- but.witon ss had .never previously had- any chum for loss made on him. Witness Tael seen two of Saxton’s sheep dead, ’do had just casually gone over lljo land. He had not gone over it looking particularly for sheep. Ik.,w,as (cite possible to lose, a lot- of VWp .>y death and never see them because they • might get into Ivies or bfc tangled tip in the tali (’em. Last year witness grazed thirteen hundred sheep of his own on the land, and at shearing time he found ho had lost about two hundred.' 1

tty Mr. Sellar; When the agree•none was made witness said uovnuig aoout tao fences oemg sueep-prem. jaxton. was wrong in saying ae Had. it was well eincieistood taut witness aas to have no trouble or cosponsorl iu in .respect of the sneep., : ‘Saxton ,1 as not saowii tne paddocits he wa . -o use or wuafc lie should not i.s-i. One paddock (MpKenaie’s) was being wept closed tor other sheep.’ ■' 'Jjie deuces wore reasonably siicep-piuoy,. trie had scon a jiieep got cJirou'g.i 'between two wires, just alter a farce aad been put up. vVitness ue/or com plained to Saxton about him putting his sheep in McKenzie’s paddock—it was-too lute when lie ioiihcl it,'out. When the sheep were ipf to removal the mustering was ah'carelul ns it could be. When witness saw Saxton after notice to remove" had been given he did not say that 'lie Knew lie had promised to give a month’s notice. Ho was quite certain about it. it,inert IViclJluggage, farmer, Poliokuta, said lie had boon sheep-farming in the district for about sixteen years. Hickford’s country was very rough. His fences were fair. It was impossible to keep sheep in unless the fence was about ton feet high—wethers would get over or through almost anything. So far as the fences were con■cnicil. lie v mild lie quite willing to ..raze sheep on the land. There was i good dqa! of. swampy land, whjch •voukl bo dangerous for straiigdsheep, inis year owing to the railway cohvtruction ,j going on, there were a yu inker of slioep-wiirrying dogs in the .ii. 1 1 iwt, and one day witness lost live com this cause. The loss in Savfcon’s •'wop was reasonable. On witn.esji’s ■•hrop the mortality was tevf fd twidyc .■or cAnt., iVnd Hiekford’s was" iibotit b.ufile that'. ' Ho could q nitty believe that the whole thirty were lying deii'J ■ n the land. Cor every one dciid ••bo?p. one might see there would-be two or three which could not be seep, .Alexander John .-'ponce, Poiioknivi. an eager of a sheep linn, said be had recently gone, round Hickfoid’s "ences. Considering the time they bad boon up he thought they were in "air order. The country was rough, •rid loss was very probable. The rooks wore particularly dangerous, i'hcy were more dangerous than any ■racks ho bad soon in any other part f the Domic ion. In view of the 'Ulster not being clean, ho thought the loss of thirty was reasonable. i’v Air. Sellar: Tie would not ojeVA ct the whole tlrirty to be dead. He thought that the .percentage of loathe on Hickfoid’s would be about two.., One per cent, was , always, alowoyl fyn- patina! doa tbs,, Last, sum-, iner there* was a shortage .of, yv^ter.

The most of the creeks would be v ied up except far a few pools, hut die silt was still moist and dangerous. Along tiie fence witness saw no 001, suggesting that sheep had got under. oames Adam Thompson, wood and coal merchant, -Strat-oid, and hit i i farmer at J;ohok ant, said he i.a ! •men farming at Bohokura for abj,.t ler years, on Hick feed'3 place ore .ijiastenag would oo no good —at least '...V0 would be necessary. The musty; Saxton got was, to his mind, a fair one. On witness's place, lie lost a'a ty out of four imndred sheep in igiit; .months. . Ris was tiie same .and of country as ITiokford’s. i.r a liictip' got into one of the- creeks there was small chance of getting out. By Mi. Sellar: The sheep on iris own farm were ewes in lamp. Wiiou ne knew Hickford’s fences tin ee years .go they were good I cnees. Mr. Spence, addressing the Court, said the, couatci>chiiiii by Saxton was i speculative one, and if it succeeded ithe Court • would bo inundated with such actions. The other side had Called a lot of evidence to snow that there was sundry defects in the ..eiices, but there had not boon any evidence' ’that the sheep had escaped oy reason of the defects. The hnv laid it down that it was necessary to prove acts of negligence, winch had not boon clone in inis -case. Counsel thought all the evidence given was in favour of Hickford. Tiie second part of the claim by Saxton for loss through short notice was merely make-weight, and Hickford could not ie held responsible for lost sheep unoss actual negligence was proved. The claim was not only unsubstantial mt was also improper in view of the ivideny.p given. Mr. S.ellar, addressing the Court, said it" should be hold to be proved that Saxton was entitled to a month’s notice, and in that case he was entitled to some damages, how-, evyer small, For breach of agreement. It must be admitted that the fences were in bad order. Counsel quoted an English case in which a verdict was given to a man whose horse had been killed by being put into a paddock with defective, fences. It was well known that sheep would go through bad fences, and sheep had been found ill (over the place, which seemed to" show that they had got through the fences. The inference was plain that the sheep had got through the fences,; and that Hickford’s action in allowing bis fences to be in such condition as they were constituted negligence. Judgment was reserved.