POSSESSION OF PIGS

Taranaki Daily News, 15 September 1934, Page 5

POSSESSION OF PIGS

FARMER SUES SHAREMILKER. IDENTITY OF A REPLACEMENT. A dispute concerning the ownership of a sow and litter of 12 pigs was heard by Mr, W. H. Woodward, S.M., at a special sitting of the Opunake Magistrate’s Court yesterday when R. F. Bowman claimed, from V. R. Hodgson and J. A. Chisholm jointly or alternately possession of the disputed animals valued at £5, together with £5 general damages for wrongful detention, or if possession could not be obtained the sum of £l2, being the value of the sow and litter. It was alleged that Chisholm, who was. ,a sharemilker for Bowman, terminated the agreement on or about March 20 and wrongly removed from Bowman’s farm a breeding sow and that Chisholm admitted he had removed the sow, but claimed it as his own property and refused to return it. Mr. A. K. North appeared for Bowman and Mr. T. B. Fouhy for Hodgson and Chisholm. Benjamin Frederick Bowman, farmer, stated that a sharemilking agreement was signed with Chisholm on July 1, 1933, to take effect for the ensuing season. There were three pigs on the property and Chisholm had no authority to bring any. One white sow had 11 young but owing to Chisholm not providing meal as arranged the sow became thin , and died. Chisholm agreed to replace the sow and obtained one from Lockley. Bowman also purchased a sow from Mr. Feaver. Asked on March 19, 1934, where the sow was that he obtained from Feaver Chisholm pointed to the one that was purchased from Lockley. Chisholm took the other sow away claiming that it was the one he got from Lockley. Bow-

man later heard the sow was at.Hodgson’s. Hodgson admitted he had a sow belonging to Chisholm, but said he had not bought it because Chisholm told him there was going to be a Court case. R. W. O’Neill, stock agent, and Geoffry Feaver, farmer, also gave evidence.

Counsel. asked for a non-suit against both defendants, claiming that the dead pig had been replaced, but the magistrate declined to grant a non-suit on that point. James Archibald Chisholm said he entered Mr. Bowman’s employment on July 1, 1932/and left in March,; 1934. At the end of the first season he received two pigs, a black barrow and a white sow, as his share. He' changed the barrow for a sow with Mr. H. Lockley and. he left the white sow to replace the one that had died. Bowman wanted the sow he obtained from Lockley. The litter had all died while at Hodgson’s.

Henry Lockley said the sow that Chisholm had was the one he purchased from him.

Victor Roy Hodgson stated that in April Chisholm said he had a pig . at Jack Feaver’s, but he was getting short of feed and he asked him if he would take it. He went and took the pig. When he knew a case was to be heard he said it would be all right to leave the pig there until .it was concluded. Bowman asked him to return the pig to Opua Road, but he said he could not do so unless he had Chisholm’s permission. The magistrate said Chisholm said the sow he took was one he obtained in exchange from Lockley and he could identify it. Lockley also said he could identify it and both said they could distinguish it from the sow purchased from Feaver and paid for by Bowman. The weight of evidence was in favour of the belief that the sow which Chisholm was retaining was the one he obtained from Lockley and that it was never Bowman’s. But that did not conclude the matter. Chisholm had left a stunted sow in replacement of the one that died. Bowman had never agreed to accept this. Tire

one that died was worth £4, but the one replaced was valued at £2. In equity and good conscience Bowman required some equity to make up the equivalent of the sow that Chisholm admitted he ought to have replaced’. Bowman would be awarded £2 against Chisholm, and costs £2 2s. As the sow was always Chisholm’s the action against Hodgson must fail and costs £2 2s would be allowed Hodgson against Bowman.