Hide Articles List

11 articles on this Page

Advertising

THE WEEK'S GARDENING.

Advertising

, WAR PENSIONS.

Advertising

ITHE WEEK'S WORK.

iTHE SHEEP THAT TOOK SNUFF.

News
Cite
Share

i THE SHEEP THAT TOOK SNUFF. Farmer's Suit at Crickhowell County Court, At Crickhowell County Court on Thru slayâ before his Honour Judge Hill-KellyâWilliam Walter Hughes, of Upper House Farm. Llanelly, sued Thomas H. Eaton, of Vedw Farm, Llangattock, for X36 15s., the value of 21 ewes. Mr. Micklethwaite, instructed by Mr. D. Gibson Harris, appeared for the plain- tiff, and Mr. St. John Francis Williams, instructed by Messrs. Powell, Hughes & Jones, for the defendant. The plaintiff stated that in October. 191 he placed 58 ewes on defendant's farm on "halves," and the defendant returned 33 of i them and produced the skins of 4 others. The defendant was a neighbouring farmer, their ¡ respective farms being separated by a common. I He (witness) had been accustomed to placing stock on halves with defendant for about five years. Sometimes some of the sheep died, and the man on whose land they were took. off the ears and produced them to the owner. He took 58 ewes on "tack" to the defendant's farm by arrangement. He called on several occasions, when they always appeared to be all right. He noticed that the fences were in a very bad condition, and that stock could go anywhere over the farm. Up to June, 1917, none of the sheep were missing. He after- wards found that two or three were missing and spoke to defendant about them. Defend- ant said they were on the farm a few days previously. In July witness again visited the farm and found that nine were missing, and defendant then admitted that four had died. About that time defendant sold two ewes and two lambs to witness, and stated that they were the only ones he had on the farm. In October witness again went to fetch the ewes, but could only find 31 out of the 58 lie had taken there. He v questioned defendant as to the 21 missing. Defendant said they were somewhere about and I that he could find them. In November witness again went to see the defendant, who then said the things are finished with." Cross-examined by Mr. St. John Francis Williams: Defendant did not tell him the sheep were in bad condition in October, 1910. Nor did he say they had not been on the mountain. Witness had "snuff" disease on his farm years ago, but it did not exist on his or defendant's farm during the years 1910-17, nor did he hear of any in the district. Defendant never told him that the sheef had "snuff" badly. In August or September of 1917, when he helped to dip defendant's sheep. he did not notice that any of his own sheep were suffering from snuff." Lewis Price, of Wern Farm, Llangattock. said he did not hear of any cases of snuff in the district last year neither did he hear that it was on defendant's farm. He had not known any cases of snuff" in the district for nearly 20 years. When sheep on halves" died it was the custom of the owner of the land to keep the ears if he could not keep the carcases. In November, 1917, in company with the plaintiff, he went to defendant's farm, when they discovered that 25 of the- 58 ewes were missing. Morgan William James, of Watenvhcel Farm. Ebbw Vale, also gave corroborative evidence as to cases of snuff," and the custom when sheep on halves died. The defendant said that in October. 1910, I when plaintiff brought 58 ewes to his farm on I halves," he noticed they were in very poor I condition, and drew plaintiff's attention to them. The ewes gained a good deal whilst I they were on his farm. In March some of them I contracted "snuff." which had broken out in the I district, and lie informed plaintiff, but it was impossible to treat them- when they were in lamb. Plaintiff said, They might get better I have some cases of 'snuff on my own farm." In April he (witness) found one ewe and lamb dead under the snow. He showed the carcases to plaintiff. In June he started treating the ewes for snuff." and plaintiff appeared to be quite satisfied. He reported the death of each sheep to plaintiff as it died, and also showed him the carcases. Altogether 19 of plaintiff's ewes died. On October 31st, plaintiff took 38 ewes away, and made no complaint about the 19 which had died. A week later lie brought five heifers to put on tack." Some discussion t, L arose between them as to two lambs which he accused plaintiff of stealing, and plaintiff said that he would rather pay for four lambs than have any bother. He eventallv agreed to pay" I Y,3 for the two, and a cheque was made out by witness's wife for £ 5 18s., being the £ 3 plus £ 2 14s. for the tack of the heifers. Cross-examined by Mr Micklethwaite "Snuff" was very serious in the district during April and May, but he did not tell any one excepting the plaintiff that it was on his farm. He sold no meat in June, July, August, or September, with the exception of one sheep I i, which he killed in June. He denied that his I wife was selling meat in June and July. She did not sell any until October. Mrs Eaton, wife of defendant, corroborated- She said when the ewes shewed symptoms ot "snuff" they were treated with milk a»d turpentine. By Mr Micklethwaite None of her husband's sheep died of "snuff," although a lot of them suffered from it. She admitted selling some meat between June and September. John Morgan Williams, of Neuadd farnii Llanelly, farm bailiff, also gave evidence for the defendant, as to the prevalence of "snuff." Practically all his sheep suffered from it last year. He lost 12 or 13 out of 140 ewes. Mr St. John Francis Williams said the plaintiff had not proved any neglect on the defeiidatit's part. In looking after the sheep as he did, it was | quite clear from the evidence that the defen- dant had done all in his power to save them. | Mr. Micklethwaite, in reply, said plaintiff denied that defendant ever drew his attention to the fact that some of his sheep suffered from siiuff," and in any case it seemed very strange that none of his sheep died. Defendant's own witness estimated that the average loss of sheep in snuff disease was oue in ten, and yet in the case before the Court 21 out of 58 of the plaintiff's sheep died of the complaint. In summing up, his Honour said that a good many points had been touched upon in the case. For the plaintiff it was suggested that the defendant had dishonestly disposed of the sheep. Then there was also the suggestion of the meat-selling, but that point was not pressed. as he had anticipated. The defendant's case was the argument that the sheep were in a very poor condition, and that on account of the very hard winter they contracted "snuff, and on account of their age, they had died from its effect. He felt bound to agree that the defendant had done all that lay in his power. and therefore judgment must be entered for defendant with cos.

BRECON GUARDIANS.1

ALL Rt, TIONED SOON.

LLANSPYDDID.

THE WEEK'S GARDENING.