HEIFER’S OWNERSHIP

Taranaki Daily News, 7 November 1935, Page 6

HEIFER’S OWNERSHIP

NGAERE FARMERS IN DISPUTE. COMPLICATED COURT CASE. A dispute between two farmers at Ngaere, Horace E. Nowell, Climie Road, and Phillip O’Brien, Finnerty Road, about the ownership of two heifers came to a head at the Stratford Court yesterday when Nowell sued O’Brien for possession of the heifers, special damages consisting of 5s for a calf allegedly born on O’Brien’s property, £7 15s for the loss of proceeds from milk, and £lO general damages. No decision was reached, the case being adjourned till to-day. Though the two farms front two different roads each backs on the Waingongoro River, the middle of which is the boundary between them. Mr. P. Thomson appeared for Nowell and Mr. J. Hessell for O’Brien. The case became complicated as it progressed. Nowell stated that the Waingongoro River was the boundary between his and O’Brien’s farms and was a strong running stream that in racing periods would be strong enough to cari-y away stock entering it. During February and March there were record floods. On his side of the river he had fenced where possible, but there were no fences on O’Brien’s side, though it would be easier for O’Brien to fence his side. Since 1928 to June, 1934, his sharemilker was Charles S. Davidson, from June, 1934, to June, 1935, the sharemilker was Arthur M. Tocker, and since then Alexander Davidson. He had a registered brand but no registered earmark. Since 1928 he had not used the brand himself. The arrangement with the sharemilkers was that they received 30 per cent, of the milk cheque and part of the calves and pigs. Usually about 30 calves were reared and those calves from good cows were given a nick in the ear by the sharemilkers with a pen knife to identify those to be kept. He paid the sharemilker his share of the calves by cheque in February of each year, and once that was done they were branded and placed in the two back paddocks adjoining the river. In 1933-34 season 28 calves were carried over and he produced a record to prove the point. Two of those calves, now heifers, were those he was claiming from O’Brien. Ten of the 28 were sold to Mr. A.. J. Corrigan and 18 were running in the river paddocks till the autumn, when they were brought up to the front of the farm becaus: of feed shortage. Often his stock strayed to O’Brien’s and vice versa and each used to go freely to the other’s property to retrieve strayed animals. On his return from Stratford on Tuesday, August 20, he learned certain information. The next day O’Brien and his assistant came to his property for two heifers he said were on Nowell’s property. At Nowell’s suggestion they inspected first the dry stock, but though O’Brien passed several times a heifer which he had claimed the previous day he said the one he was looking for was not there. MARKS ON EARS. They went on to the milking herd and a .conversation took place over a heifer with, a cocked horn. O’Brien said it was his and Nowell said it was not, pointing out that the marks on the ears did not correspond with O’Brien’s description of his marks. Nowell suggested that the Government inspector of brands settle the point. O’Brien suggested somebody had altered the earmarks. On Thursday afternoon Mr. and Mrs. O’Brien, the sergeant of police and Constable Hughes called. The two heifers in dispute were taken to the shed, where' they were examined; They could not get the inspector that day but on Friday morning the same people and the inspector, Mr. W. Harris, visited the farm. Nowell could not find brands on the heifers; the hair was long. The ears were examined by Mr. Harris. Nowell was upset at the time, for his wife was seriously ill and subsequently died, and he also was ill and worried. He could not find the brands and he did not feel inclined to fight the matter any further at that stage, so the two heifers were handed to O’Brien that day—August 23. He informed his brother-in-law, A. J. Corrigan, and on the following Monday witness and Corrigan crossed to O’Brien’s where they inspected the heifers in O’Brien’s presence. Nowell failed again to find the brands, but Corrigan claimed that the heifers were Nowell’s as Corrigan had handled them during a period in which he was managing the farm while Nowell was away. O’Brien produced the sheep marker that he said had been used to earmark the heifers. Corrigan tested it on the marks in the ears of the heifers. He was claiming the value of a calf bom on O Brien s farm, for loss of milk and general damages such as loss of time and expenses. In answer to Mr. Hessell Novell said he had not a punch earmark. Any earmarking was done with a knife, but all the stock branded in 1933-34 were branded with the brand produced. Charles S. Davidson, Toko, said that during an inspection of stock on O’Brien’s property he identified two of the heifers as Nowell’s. The two animals were clipped in the presence of the police. Nowell’s brand was revealed on each. A demand was made for the return of the heifers to Nowell but O’Brien refused. Arthur M. Tocker, Alton, said he was certain that he had seen the two heifers in dispute among Mr. Nowell’s heifers at the back of the farm. Alexander Davidson, who is Nowell’s present sharemilker, gave evidence of visits paid by O’Brier to Nowell s farms. O’Brien identified a heifer he said was his and inferred that it carried his earmark which, he alleged, had been interfered with.