A WAITOTARA case

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 221, 18 September 1936, Page 12

A WAITOTARA case

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES MADE ALLEGED INJURY TO STOCK A LENGTHY HEARING The hearing of a civil action between two parties resident near Waitotara, which has already occupied the attention of the Wanganui Magistrate’s Court for over three days, and is likely to continue for perhaps another one, was resumed before Mr. J. H. Salmon. S.M., yesterday. The parties to the action are Isohel Thynne, farmer, of Waitotara, plaintiff, and James Lord, farm manager, Waitotara, and his wife, Lillian Dorothy Lord, defendants. Mrs. Thynne’s action seeks a sum of £297 damages. She has alleged that defendants interfered with her cows, with a result that she has suffered loss. The defence, which was opened yesterday, is a direct denial of the allegations. Mr. A. D. Brodie (Wanganui), with him Mr. J. A. Cowdell (Waverley) appeared for Mrs. Thynne, and Mr. B. C. Haggitt (Wanganui) for the Lords. The case was opened on August 13, continued on August 14, and resumed on Wednesday and yesterday, the sittings of the Court being curtailed sufficiently to allow the parties to attend to milkings in between times. There is one more witness to be heard, after which counsel will address His Worship. The hearing has been adjourned until Tuesday morning. Male Defendant Cross-examined. Lord was cross-examined by Mr. Brodie as to the dogs he owned and to the alleged driving of the cows by the children and by defendant's wife. Lord said that he was unaware ot what his wife had done on June 13, as he had been scrub-cutting. She had told him that she had had trouble culling out a calf from Thynne’s cows. He had not heard about his wife’s alleged driving of the cows down the hill until he received the summons. The same thing applied in respect to the alleged treatment of the cows by the children. He knew nothing of the complaint until he received the summons. If they had driven the cows on the Thursday or Saturday as suggested it was without his knowledge or authority. Defendant denied that he had driven the cows over the ridge on the Sunday night at anything but their own pace. He was in no hurry. He did not consider it safe to drive cattle over the ridge at a run owing to the greasy nature of the country nt the lime.

Mr. Brodie: You have heard Mr. Wilson’s account—that the cows were seen on the bottom road well stirred up, definitely blown and otherwise disstressed—can you account for the difference in your description and his? —lf I had dogged and whipped the cows down the ridge, as is said I did, they would have had time to be practically normal again by the time Mr. Wilson came along. And you suggest, Mr. Lord, when you put the cows on to the bottom road, they were showing no signs of distress?--Yes. When I put them out they started feeding their way back towards Thynne’s.

Lord was further cross-examined on the question of bullocks being put in the ridge paddock the day after the cows had been driven over the ridge. Witness was asked whether bullocks driven down the ridge track would tend to obliterate any tracks of a horse, had there been such tracks there. Witness replied that bullocks were different to cows and it would depend on the tracks they took. They would tend to treat a ridge like that as a joke and travel down at a run. Mr. Brodie: Why did you not tell Cecil Thynne and the constable that you had driven the cows over the ridge?—l was not asked that. Mr. Brodie: You allowed them to depart with a notion that it was some other horseman?—No. To the magistrate defendant said that the track referred to over the ridge was a usual track in that strangers did use it and no objection was made. Witness understood that it was the recognised route before the road was open. Lillian Dorothy Lord, the otner defendant, gave evidence to the effect that she had not seen the children chasing the cows, but some ot Thynne’s herd had walked in front of the two girls on their way to school. On the Thursday afternoon witness had seen some of her own cows which had accidentally got out on to the road. She had gone out with the intention of getting them in before they got boxed with Thynne’s. She had had no difficulty in getting the cows out, but had to go after a calf. She followed right down the road to get. the calf and some Of Thynne’s cows were half way down the hill before she got it out. She had no dog or stick. She had spoken to Bill Thynne and objected to the cows being on the road. She said she would complain about it. Thynne had said he was in an awkward position, as the rabbiter was coming and had ordered the stocks to be put out of a particular paddock. Witness was in town on July 12 and had rung the ranger. He came out on July 14 and Thynne’s cows were kept off the road after that. The first witness heard about herself, her children or her husband having allegedly molested the cows was when she received the summons on July 25, 1936. Cross-examined by Mr. Brodie, witness said that the children were in no

way instructed to interfere with the cows. The first she knew of her husband driving them down the ridge track was when she got the summons. Jean Lord gave evidence denying that either the or her sister Ei.een had molested the cows as suggested. Tehira Wipeha, labourer, who said he had been working on the Waitotara Valley road irorn April to July 1935, said that Thynne s cows were often or. the road. Charles Goodall Webster, stock representative for Murray, Roberts and Company, was called and stated that the ridge over which it was stated I the cows had been driven was an easy one, ,vith an easily ridable track. It would be quite safe tor cows heavy in calf if they were divert normally. Quiet stock would not gallon down a ridge like that in the middle of the night without they were forced. Mr. Brodie: So it comes down to this: It is all wrapped up in the question, “How were they driven down the riege?”—Yes. fan David Parsons, who owned the property managed by the defendant said tfaaUdbOUt midnight, ou the

Sunday night (June 16) Constable Skinner and one of the Thynne boys had called at his house and wanted to know what sort a horse Lord rode. Witness had replied, a bay pony. They asked whether it was a brown horse, or whether witness owned a horse which was in the fescue paddock. Witness drove them down to see the horse. Although witness said thal the horse was not his nor Lord's the Thynnes would not accept that. Witness went home when they were still arguing about it. From his knowledge of Lord with stock witness would be very surprised if Lord had dogged cows heavy in calf down the ridge as was suggested. In reply to Mr. Brodie, witness said that if Lord had taken bullock, from the homestead (Nukumaru) the day after the cows had been driven down the ridge and had put them in the ridge paddocks from the top gate it would be under his (witness') instructions. Witness, however, was not sure whether bullocks were taken from the homestead on that day. It was so far back he could not be clear. The top gate would be th . nearest because after Lord had pu: the bullocks into the ridge paddock he would be near his house. Witness did not think that he was one who had signed a petition to allow Mr. Thynne senior to occupy a triangle of ground near the road. He would not swear, however, that he had no so signed. Yesterday afternoon the defence called William Major, ranger for the Waitotara County Council, who said he had spoken to Mrs Thynne about her cows being on the road. That was on July 5, 1935. She had said that she was short of grass, but witness had replied that the road could not be farmed. Later he got a ring on the telephone and as a result of that went out to Thynne’s on July 14 ana found 52 cows on the road—the rivetroad. Apparently, they had been using the accommodation paddock at night and putting the cows out in the day. Witness had called on Mrs Thynne and she had said there would be no more trouble with the cows. There had been no trouble since a letter had been written to her by Mr Dix. Her property was bare and the cows were not fat. “You could not call them in good condition,” said witness. Evan Daniel Cameron, sharemilker, said that he had seen Mrs Thynne’s cows on the road many times. They were very poor, due, apparently, to shortage of feed. John Robb, who had been dairy farming at Westmere from 1907 to 1935, was called to give evidence as to what a practical dairy farmer would do in such a case as that met by the plaintiff. The case was adjourned until Tiimday aext at Id a.m.