FARMERS’ DISPUTE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 12726, 22 August 1919, Page 6

FARMERS’ DISPUTE.

ASHBURTON SHEEP DEAL. CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. , The case Thomas Solomon Harrison, i sheepfarmor, Methven, v. Wm. Ashton,, farmer, Ashburton, claim for £662 lOs 6d on account of sheep alleged to hare been sold by plaintiff to defendant, and;, for paddocking, was continued in the. Supreme Court to-day before his Honor* I Mr Justice Herdman and a jury of \ twelve. Mr Acland, with him Mr F-. j C. Wilding, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr M. J. Gresson. with him Mr H. G-. ■ Orbell, for defendant. _ ' Mr Gresson said that the' question l , involved was, What was a sale? Were* the sheep tendered to defendant soundmouthed ewes? Hid defendant in fact agree to accept 740 sheep -put hy- plaintiff into his paddock? Those were the points on which the case must be decided. It was incredible, in the view of the evidence, that defendant took delivery. As a matter of fact, defendant told plaintiff that the sheep were not sound-mouthed, and that he couldnot take delivery. Defendant said that plaintiff told him that the sheep were guaranteed soundmouthed. Witness resold them ’.to Mr Forbes. When they wont- to take de-. livery at plaintiff’s place, ho-was told that some failiiigenouthed sheep were taken from the yard, into a paddock,; and that the 967 that remained were sound-mouthed. After a few had been mouthed, Mr Forbes said that they, were not sound-mouthed. Failingmouthed sheep, numbering 218, _ were taken out. Plaintiff said that witness and Mr Forbes must take those sheep and he would not give delivery of the balance of 749 only, saying that the whole lot or none must he taken. Witne ss’pstioiso IsaSekum fOhSbA Getaoi ness’s position was that he had a right to reject all sheep not sound-mouthed. There were a good many lame sheep amongst the 746- If he had intended to take delivery of the 746 sheep he would have taken out the lame sheep, but did not do so. It was the rule for the vendor to tender for inspection the whole line of any sheep offered. Witness would not take delivery of any sheep unless he had examined the lot to ascertain if they . were soimdraouthed. To Mr Acland; He instructed his lawyer to tell plaintiff .that ho would not take delivery of the sheep. Plaintiff distinctly said that they were sound-mouthed, and seemed to think that witness should simply get a drove* and take them away. James Gow, farmer, Ashburton, for. merly a sheep dealer, said that he did not think that a vendor could have tho sole right to reject sheep. If a line was sold to him for forward delivery, he would not consider that the veudo; had the right to sell the culls before delivery. Alexander Hamilton Forbes, sheepfarmer and dealer, Christchurch, said that an examination showed him that a good third of the sheep in the yard at plaintiff’s had failing mouths- He was told that as he was buying guaranteed sound mouthed ewes, he could reject those with failing mouths- There was great difference between a failing mouth and a broken mouth. When examining the sheep at plaintiff’s li* expected that those sent from the yard to the paddock would be submitted to him for inspection before he iKinght them from defendant. After the sheep were counted, and he found that there were 218 failing mouth sheep, lie snM there were too manv, and he would not take the sheep. Defendant did not accept the 746 sheep. The plaintiff said that defendant must take all the sheep or none. Witness refused to take from defendant the 218 shorn in the paddock, which he was not able to inspect-