CATTLE SALE DISPUTE

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 841, 9 December 1929, Page 10

CATTLE SALE DISPUTE

MEANING OF “DAIRY COW” DISCUSSED JUDGE DISMISSES APPEAL Press Association NEW PLYMOUTH, Today. Whether or not the term “dairy cow” implies a cow in calf and due to calve within a reasonable time was argued in the New Plymouth Supreme Court on Saturday before Mr. Justice MacGregor, when T. A. Rowe appealed against the decision of a magistrate at Stratford, who had refused to grant him £69 3s 6d damages against H. McD. Loelihead, who had allegedly sold him dairy cows that should have calved early in the season, whereas they had calved late or not at all. When the appeal was being argued Mr. A. Chrystal, for Rowe, submitted that the cows were not fit for the purpose of a dairy herd and were really store cows. He said that, according to the common usage of the term, a dairy cow was one in calf and to calve within a reasonable time of sale. The magistrate had not agreed with that view however. The term dairy cow was used on the sale note and it was suggested that in the circumstances this was misrepresentation, His Honour dismissed the appeal, with nine guineas costs. 1-Ie said he could not agree with counsel for appellant that, by custom in New Zealand. and particularly in Taranaki, cows sold as dairy cows were deemed to be cows in calf and due to calve within a prescribed period. If there had been such a custom why was there a warranty as/ to calving which was given expressly in some cases, as deposed to by witnesses? Plaintiff had purchased these cows as dairy cows, said his Honour, and he got dairy cows, that is, cows which were milked as dairy cows at the time of purchase. It seemed to him that the magistrate had given very careful and thorough consideration to the case, and his decision should not be disturbed unless he had misapplied .the law. He could not see that the magistrate had done that, and therefore he could not upset his decision. It was impossible for plaintiff to know that the cows were in calf, anil he had to rely on defendant's report that they were in calf. He did rely on that report. If he wanted any fjirther warranty on such a point he should have had it embodied in the sale note. The evidence did not go far enough to prove fraudulent misrepresentation. It was of great imiiortance to farmers in buying stock that, if they wanted a warranty as to the condition of cows in respect to halving, they should see to it that such a warranty was on the sale note. The sale note in this case did not carry any such warranty, and he could not say that the cows were so warranted.