CLAIM FOB SHEEP.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2380, 22 December 1908, Page 6

CLAIM FOB SHEEP.

DALGETY AND Ou. v. H. N. LYSNAR. JUDGMENT FOB DEFENDANT. At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning, before Mr. W. A. Barton, S.M., Messrs. Dalgety and Co. proceeded against Hilton Nisbett liysnar to recover the amount of £7, being the value of 10 sheep at 14s per head, alleged to have been sold and delivered to defendant by the plaintiff firm. Mr. F. W. Nolan appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. J. B. Kirk for the defendant. Ashton S. Wachsmann, auctioneer, gave evidence of the sale of a mob of sheep to defendant. The number contained in the mob was not known exactly, but an entry in the books showed the number a& 1631. The drover’s receipt showed that 1641 sheep were delivered, but this receipt came to hand' after the receipt of defendant’s promissory note m payment for 1631. Common, Shelton, and Co., from whom the sheep were bought, had claimed for 10 sheep, and had been paid by plaintiffs. He met defendant several months ago, and made a claim upon him for the amount of the value of the 10 sheep. Defendant said that there were several Parikanapa sheep an the mob. and that he was not going to pay fox* them.

To Mr. Kirk: He thought Sir. Elliott was manager of the plaintiffs’ firm at tile time of the transaction. He had never heard that defendant had made any complaint regarding the sheep, but defendant had since told him that he had made complaint to Mr Elliott. The sheep were roughly counted at Manga papa, and on the way to defendant’s property (Ahe.munu) would pass through Parikinapa station. The count at Mangapapa was 1631, hut the drover’s receipt at Aihemanu showed 1641. James Evers, of Patutahi, said that Tie was one of the drovers who took the sheep from Mangapapa to Ahemanu.. He and defendant counted them on arrival, and found the mob to number 1641. He was quite sure that he would have noticed any Parikmiapa. sheep when counting them had they been in the mob. To Mr Kirk: He could not say that he knew the Parikanapa' earmark, hut would know a strange sheep in any mob. Tie counted the sheep at Matuwhero and found the number to be 1635.

To the Bench: He would not notice strange sheep by their earmarks, but by their general appearance. ‘This concluded the evidence for the plaintiffs, and Mr Kirk outlined the case for the defendant. ' Hilton N. Lysnar said that when lie bought the sheep he understood there were 1650, hut lie later had a telephone message from plaintiff’s agent that they were 20 short. When he first saw ‘the sheep at his gate he saw Parikanapa sheep in the mob. They counted 1644 sheep through the gate into a secure paddock of 90 acres, with no other sheep in it. When the sheep were counted through the race the following morning they found several more Parikanapa sheep there, leaving 1631 of the new mob all told. A day or two afterwards he got an account from .plaintiff’s for 1631 sheep, and consequently did not tell them about the Parikanapa sheep in the mob. Some weeks afterwards the present claim was made on him, and he went to see .plaintiff’s manager* (Air Elliott), who later on told him the money for the ten extra sheep had been paid. This concluded: the evidence for thi defence, and after counsel had addressed the court, His Worship said that the real question at .issue was whether 1631 or 1641 sheep lmd been /delivered to defendant. Defendant had certainly signed a receipt for 1641 sheep, but that had been satisfactorily explained by the fact of Parikanapa sheep having got in. If defendant’s evidence was true, and he saw no reason to doubt it, he was entitled to succeed. Judgment would accordingly be for defendant with costs.