FARMERS DIFFER.

Taranaki Daily News, 16 December 1924, Page 8

FARMERS DIFFER.

OWNERSHIP OF HAY.

SUPREME COURT ACTION

The question of the ownership of three stacks of hay on a farm at Rawhitiroa and the value of the hay provided the subject matter of an action in which Denis King, a labourer of Stratford, .sued John Walsh, of Eltham, for possession of chattels and t*37 IDs and -£5 damages. in the Supreme ‘-Court -it New Plvxnouth yesterday. His Honour Mr. ■) tire MauGregor was on the bench. AL. J. L. Weir appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. A. A. Bennett for the defendant. The case was an echo of the boom. In 1919 King had -purchased a farm from Walsh at Rawhitiroa and for two years things went well. King then began to get behind in his interest, and after one arrangement had been made it subsequently became necessary for -him to vacate the farm. There were several interviews between the parties and soli- , citors and at length an agreement was reached in May of this year, under which iin consideration of - an assignment of i stock and chattels, etc., \\ ai-ii was to I give King a complete release. An understanding was reached that the plain- | tiff should go off the farm on July i II In the assignment no mention had

been made of the bay, although it had i been mentioned at one of the interviews. I King contended that the hay belonged 1 to him and Walsh that it was his property, the omission ot any mention of it in the schedule to the assignment | being accidental. King had tried to oh- ! tain -possession of the hay and had been i resisted by Walsh, who had had the I gates on the farm locked and had served , notice on King that if he wanted the I hay he would have to sue for it. I The case was argued on two points, * His Honour first being asked to decide whether the hay should come in under the assignment, or whether it was the property of King. Evidence was given as to the negotiations between the parties, defendant and his solicitor, Mr. A. Chrystal, of Eltham, stating that it was understood the hay was to be in the assignment and King that the hay had been purposely omitted. Kiag also said that Chrystal had told him that he was entitled to everything on the farm which was not in the assignment. His Honour said that before he could

convincing evidence that the (.mission of the hay from the schedule wa» a mutual mistake. He had not been so convinced, and accordingly gave judgment for the plaintiff on this point. The next point -was as to the value of the hay and at His Honour’s suggestion the parties conferred. On resuming, Mr. Weir said he had offered to accept £7O plus The costs of the action. His Honour said he had not asked them to go into any question of costs. Mr. Bennett said he had offered £7O including costs, but he was not prepared to advise his client to pay that sum and £l5 15s costs as well. He thought he would have to ask His Honour to decide the value of the hay. “I shall probably refer it to some independent farmer; I am not going to sit here for (probably three or four hours discussing the value of some stacks of hay,” said His Honour. He again asked whether the parties could come to an agreement or whether they would .prefer him to refer toe question to a farmer, whose decision would probably cost them about £35 or £4O. At His Honour’s suggestion, counsel conferred with him in the judge’s chambers, and on resuming Mr. Weir an Bounced that they had agreed on judgment for £77 10 s for the plaintiff, th if amount to include costs. Judgment was therefore entered a<c cordingly.