OATH AGAINST OATH

Stratford Evening Post, Issue 85, 5 July 1928, Page 2

OATH AGAINST OATH

INVOLVED CATTLE DEALS.

TRANSACTIONS OUT MAST. A. E. Pond (Mr Moss) sued J, Buchannan (Mr Coleman) at the Stratford Court yesterday for tliq sum of £4, the purchase price of a horse. Buchanan counter-claimed for £l9 10s, and in the course of the evidence a large number of involved transactions with, cattle were dealt with. After hearing irjueh |ev,!-( deuce a non-suit was entered on all counts. " Alfred E. Pond, Public Works em-

ployee, Tangarakau, gave evidence; that on October 7th, 1927, he sold a mare to Buchanan. , Witness had bought the mare from Buchanan in June, 1926. In October witness shifted out to tunnel work at Tangarakau. He was in a hurry and saw Buchanan on the road. He I asked (Buchanan if the mare was any good to him. Buchanan said lie would take it and would pay £4 tor it. ’ Witness loft it in a paddock for Buchanan, and the latter now had lu in his jiossossion. Witness paid £4 10s for the mare. To Mr Coleman ,; The mare was in fat condition. It was touched i |l the wind, as! it was when he got it, and it was pigeon-toed. ' Buchanan knew what sort of an animal'it was when Jib bought it. Ten shillings woUld not ho a fair price for the ,mare. There had been a number of transactions with Buchanan, nut when Buchanan owed witness money witness squared things by taking stock from Buchanan, but when anything wan owing to Buchanan he always demanded cash-Re-examined: When the mare was bought witness also purchased two heifers from Buchanan. On Buchanan agreeing to pay £4 for the mare witness cried quits over a sum then owing for grazing. Accounts for £4 were sent to Buchanan, with a request that lie should pay the money to Mr Henry Anderson. One was sent isome time in October, and another in November or December. To Mr Coleman: Buchanan owed witness about £3O, in addition to the sum for the mare.

BUCHANAN’S STORY. Defendant, a farmer resident at Kohuratahi, said tho mar© was not sold to him. It was witness’ mare. He had owned her for about ten years, having purchased her at a, sale, and ishe would be about fifteen year s old. Witness did not thinic islio had any mcney value. One might get 5g for her 1 Pond had land at Pohoknra on which witness grazed cattle. When he took the cattle witness rode the made and, he left her on Pond’s place. Afterwards witness used the mare on several occasions, and Pond knew of this. Pond said the mare was in fdal, he having put her to a hors© while he was away shearing. Witness said he would g've Pont? £4 for the service. Witness would have liked to have a foal from the mare. But the mare was not in foal.

To Mr Moss: On June 29th, 1926, Pond bought two heifers at' £4, hut the entry in Pond’s diary to the effect that he bought a horse far £4 10s was wrong. Witness did not owe Pond anything. Pond usually kept ahead of things in his own favour.

Mr Moss traversed a number ofl entries from Pond’s diary relating to stock dealings between th© parties, witness ■ agreeing with most of the items.

CHARGE FOR GRAZING. In reply to Mr Moss witness said he grazed forty odd cattle at Pond’s place. He agreed to pay a shilling a head) per week, but ho could not continue to pay that sum. it was wrong for Pond to charge at Is per head per week for fifteen weeks to*’ 41 cattle. Th© arrangement was In at the charge should be sixpence a week per heaa after a month. In November 192 b witness did not buy two heifers from' Pond. He did not pay Pond £3 for ouo and sell it next day to Sandiford for £5. This concluded the evidence on the claim, and evidence was taken on Buchanan’s counter-claim. Buchanan said ho claimed £5, money alleged to he paid by George Sandiford t 0 Pond, ou terms requiring him to pay it over ici witness. ’Hid sum, of £B' was claimed for a cow re, moved from Pond’s place and £6 10s for los s of profits in regard to another cow. The stock were blustered and witness found; two missing One cow was recovered from M.alniancho’s place hut the other disappeared altogether. To Mr Moss i Witness had received no notice that Malrnancho was mustering his cows. fdo had ll() t been told that two of his cows wore •among Malmanche’iS. Witness had never spoken about proceedings against Malrnancho. WIFE TAKES A HAND. Witness went to Malrnancho’a place to look for his cows, but Mrs Malrnancho made it hot for him and ho had to leave quiefify. Pond milked Malmanche’s cows while Malmanche was. away shearing, and said there was a cow in the herd answering to the description of the one missed by witness. , ME Moss asked a question of witness to reference to proceoduro in

recovering the cow, .Witness: I know noticing of that, I’m not a lawyer.. Mr. Moss: But you arc a stfk'*k dealer, and you know all about stock dealings. Witness: I get taken down a good deal. Witness went on to state that ho had not troubled to claim from Malmanche as he had gone '"'bankrupt. Mr Moss: And you don’t remember your claim 'against Pond until Pond sues you. Witness: Well, even a worm wilt turn. 'Percy A. Malmanche, farmer, gave evidence that in July, 1926, he was farming at Pohokura. His mother sold the place to Fond and witness bought the fourteen cows on the place. He arranged with Pond to ,milk the cows, and in return for the milk to graze them through the winter. 'After a time Pond reported that the cows were dry and that he would have to chaigo giazin„. Witness took the cows away, and ho had to sort them 'out irom some o Buchanan’s with which they had got mixed.

TWO LOTS OF COWS. To Mr Moss: Pond sorted the cows out when witness removed them. This lot of fourteen were removed off the property altogether. iheio ■were other of witness’ cows on the place. These ho intended to sell in the spring. Of all the cow* on the place only one was claimed Ify somebody else. Giving evidence' on the eounteii claim Pond said the £5 collected was the price paid by Sandiford for one of the heifers which Buchanan had bought from witness. To Mr Moss: When Buchanan offered to pay M for the. mare witness agreed, to cry quits over the grazing, thou gif' on going over the transactions he found thgfc Buchanan was owing him £3O odd. Summing up, Mr R. W. Tate, S.M., said that people who brought their differences to 'Court should bear in mind that it was difficult for the Court to come to a decision when the evidence consisted wholly el; one man’s word against another’s. It was a principle that a person who made a claim should m-mg ■ reasonable proof in support of it. so that the Court could know which way judgment should go. The Court had to he careful not to do an injustice. It was better for the CourtV to, ( o> nothin* than to do ah Therefore both parties would, bo non-suited on all counts.