BREEDERS AT LAW.

Waikato Times, Volume 113, Issue 18946, 16 May 1933, Page 6

BREEDERS AT LAW.

HEIFER’S PROGENY.

OFFER MADE IN CATALOGUE.

CASE SETTLED OUT OF COURT.

An Interpretation of the definiteness of an offer made In a catalogue of a pedigree Jersey cattle sale was sought from Mr F. H. Levlen, S.M., in the Hamilton Magistrate’s Court today, when Cedric Kirkley, farmer and Jersey breeder, of Hastings, claimed £37 damages from F. J. Saxby, of Hamilton, proprietor of the Alfalfa Pedigree Jersey Stud. ■Mr F. A. Swarbrlck, Instructed by Hallett and O’Dowd, of Hastings, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr J. F. Strang represented the defendant. The statement of claim set out that'In April, 1931, at a public auction sale of pedigree Jersey stock owned by defendant, plaintiff purchased from "defendant a pedigree , Jersey heifer named “Gay,” in calf to defendant’s pedigree Jersey bull, “Walpiko Masterpiece." The purchase price was £67 10s. “Gay" was purchased by plaintiff on representations contained Li a catalogue published by the defendant. The offer, which, It Vwas contended was definite, was as follows :

“A minimum price of 50gns. will be paid by Mr Saxby for any calf by Walpiko Masterpiece or Vive la France’s Last Son (imp.) from any heifer in this catalogue at one year old, providing that it has been well done, -Is not a heifer twin to a bull, and the dam has been semi-official tested. This offer does not apply in cases where the dam does not exceed the above by more than lOgns.”

i Terms Complied With.

It was claimed that on July 15, 1931, “Gay" was delivered of a heifer oalf. As the terms and conditions of the offer had been' fully complied with plaintiff therefore became entitled to the benefit of defendant’s offer. Plaintiff wrote asking defendant to purchase the calf at 50gns., but defendant declined to fulfil his offer.

Lengthy correspondence was read touching the negotiations between the parties. The Magistrate said the only point on which the question oould be decided was a legal point.

Plaintiff Examined by Counsel.

After giving evidence on the lines of counsel's opening address, covering the statement of claim, plaintiff was examined by Mr. Strang, for the defendant, on the question as to whether he had not defaulted in his payments to Mr. Saxby for the heifer “Gay." He admitted that he had not paid the promissory note du.e on April 28, 1932, and that he had availed himself of the three months extension granted by Mr. Saxby. The magistrate commented that after reading the voluminous correspondence between the parties, he did not think that this showed an abrogation of Saxby’s offer, hut he would not express a definite opinion in the meantime.

Plaintiff was then cross-examined on the question of damage. He admitted that the heifer had not been catalogued for the Hastings sale. Mr. Strang: Is the calf still in your possession?—Yes. And it has been ever since Its sale on September 8, 1932? —Yes. And you have never received the purchase money for it?—No. During the luncheon adjournment the parties arrived at a mutual understanding, and the case was struck out.