PAYMENT FOR A COW

Taranaki Daily News, 19 September 1930, Page 4

PAYMENT FOR A COW

CASE OF ACUTE MAMMITIS PUBCHASER REFUSES TO PAY. JUDGMENT GIVEN BY COURT. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £l3 13s 3d (costs £8 6s 3d) when the Farmers’ Co-operative Organisation Society (Mr. A. K. North) proceeded against Maurice Rogers (Mr. C. McCormick) in-the New Plymouth Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr. R. W. Tate, S,M. Mr. North submitted that this was a matter of the practice of mercantile and stock firms which, when a. sale was made, became the' agents for the purchaser. Within seven days of the sale such nrms ■paid the vendors and entered a debit against the purchaser, who, if he did not pay or reimburse the firm, could be sued for the amount. In this, particular case a question arose over the purchase of a cow, and the defendant appeared to think that because he had some claim tor breach of warranty in respect,.of the cow he could set the price of the cow against his indebtedness to the pluintifl. firm. Counsel pointed- out that . -if there had ..-been a breach, of warranty the de- . ' fondant’s remedy was against the ven■■v dor and not against the plaintiff firm. The claim was not in respect of the ptico of the cow but on the balance of an account current. According to the account in the- books of the company the cow had been paid, for, as the credits more than extinguished the amount ol that item on the debit side. Evidence was given by Thomas J. bab mon, manager of the New Plymouth branch, of the Farmers’ Co-operative Society as-to the account of the defendant, who had stated , on. February 17 last, when he'paid a' stun of £a Ids 3d, ti nt he considered he should not pay for the cow. All the payments made prior to that were made without refer- , cnee to any particular appropriation. iU'Witness then deposed to the P l ’ actl , ce -■? followed by stock firms in regard to the payment for stock sold through their agency, as outlined by counsel. In common terms it was called “giving accommodation to clients.’,’ , ■ .HISTORY OF TRANSACTION. In answer to Mr. McCormick witness said that the’cow was one for which a debit was entered on September la, 192». Witness had not joined the plaintiff firm till June, 1920, so that if any complaint had been made by the defendant prior to that date witness would not know : 'about it. The defendant had discussed the question of the unsound .cow, and said also that he had 'mentioned the '■'matter previously to Mr. Linn, but he .? 'said nothing about disputing the account. Witness, said nothing about making any allowance, blit referred the f i: defendant to the vendor. When defend- , ant paid the .£5 13s 3d there was then owing ,on the account a total ot ti», and that left approximately the price of the cow owing, and defendant said then he would not pay for the cow. William A. Hewitt, general manager of the plaintiff company, corroborated the evidence as to the practice of mer-. cantile firms in giving “accommodation to clients.” v ■ Under cross-examination the witness feaid the Farmers’ never purchased stock, t for itself. In this particular sale and purchase the Farmers’ ' was agent for both parties, though he could not say that it had been instructed by him to purchase a cow. He took delivery of Jtfw cow. The commission was charged Gainst the vendor, and nothing was paid, by thei defendant for services. Cedi ’ John Balaom, farmer, Upper Mangorei, gave evidence of the sale of the cow. It was a good cow, and had no mammitis. while it was on lus place. He had had no such trouble in his held. It was the kind of cow that needed a good deal of care. Defendant had never /made any complaint , to witness about the cow. /. . .... „„ < Cross-examined, Witness said the coi . was sold by him to the Farmers. Defendant had a look at it and said he ■ would take it. He took delivery .of the cow, but witness looked to the 1 aimers for payment. THE AGENT’S EVIDENCE. Henry Linn, stock agent for the Farmers’, said he was prepared to P urcl, f!® this particular cow on behalfof his brother. On coming away from Mr. Bali sum’s place he met the defendant, who said he wanted some cows, and witness told him of this cow, and said that lie ■ hud bought the cow for _ his biothei, " but that if it suited defendant he could have it. Defendant subsequently agreed to take it. He heard later that the cow had died, but did not know if defendant had had the services of a veterinary sur“io Mr. McCormick he said he bought the cow as agent for .the Farmers’ for his brother and allowed defendant to step into the place of his brother as the purchaser of the beast. .He made no • mention of any allowance account of the cow, and witness never told him the Farmers’ would make him an allowallFo‘r the defendant Mr. McCormick said that immediately the cow became sick defendant had seen Linn and objected to paying for it. When two or ■ -three weeks after the sale the cow died he objected again. A practical fanner, de- ’ fendant had seen mammitis in cows bef °Maui-ice Rogers in evidence said that 1928 had been his-first season on the farm'. He had told Mr. Linn that he was short of good dairy cows. He met Mr. Linn later and had ben asked if still wanted a vow as Mr. Linn said he had one which he had at Ba Isom s. Defendant said he told Mr. Linn that he did not like the idea of purchasing a single cow from a dairy farmer s held. Ho°was told to have a look at it as it was guaranteed sound. He did that and THirriiased the cow for £l3. He Had Eitlt from Mr. Linn as the Farmers’ cow calved in the week after purchase and did not look too well, having stiff hind legs and a swollen udder It gave no milk except a yellow, flaky fluid. The udder was lumpy and blue in patches. He called in a . neigliboiir, Mr. Hardw-idge, and was adto consult a stock uispectoi. Ml. Sutton was away at the tunc and defendant knew of nobody else. Asked 'if he had treated the cow bin-self defendant said he bathed the udder with hot water and massaged it. The cow was kept in a paddock neai the shed and treated several times a day. He told Mr. Liny the cow was unsound and that he had no intention of pavin" for it. Mr. Linn told defendant that he would be out to see it in the Xing ancl.that «n y ««y tb. would see him through. Mr. Linn <licl not visit his farm when he said he would, and also did not arrive or. another occasion. Defendant said he called to see the manager of the I<nrnicl ® J"’ he was away. He had ...tended to tell him he was not going to accept liabilcow that had been s

teed sound and then turned out unsound. He contradicted the evidence ot Robert Balsom in regard to the bucket of milk. No one had milked the cow but Mr. Hardwidge and himself, he said.

Mr. North said there was no suggestion in any of defendant’s correspondence that his account was wrong or that he did not intend to pay it. In answer to the magistrate detenuant said Mr. Linn had guaranteed the cow sound at calvivng. r The magistrate: But did Mr. Linn Guarantee it or c-ay it was guaranteed? ° Defendant explained that he understood that there was a guarantee that the cow would be sound at calving. . F. W. Sutton, stock - -inspector,_ said from what he had heard of the disease ho would say it was an acute attack of mammitis. Sometimes this came on very quickly and other times slowly. There was no definite way in which one could tell whether a cow was sound before, calving or not. Sometimes a cow quite sound at the end of one season would develop mammitis at the beginning of the next. It could ndt have been milk fever. Acute manimitis would develop in a few days and, unless arrested, would pass through several stages until bltfod-poisoning set in. The magistrate said.-he-was tired of explaining .the. warranty to, farmers. He had done‘it many times but it seemed to have no effect. If the cow was sound at the time of wail the piirchaser’s.. If farmers .wanted other guarantees they ’ should get them in writing. Rogers had largely brought the trouble upon himself by not "oing to Balsom when the cow developed the malady. Judgment was »ivcn for plaintiff and costs arranged.