The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1863-08-18 00:00:00

sad 1881 milted a dairy of the defendant, who
farmer at Hilton. Tbers ern no written agree-
aut: h4nelhatem, but Owe wag ae anderetand
mg -
that t was to reit 31 lows at £ll a-
head, sad that the defendant was to supply them
with =Serest food. AU went on well the first
year, bat during the wood year the defendant's
oondwit was very unkind to his elitist, he did every.
...,6114'14",a7 and biases him did not provide
Injured him
hismadmonasamitoforearigrsibeatbshimcatiltoece,fau'aithdttoogthrarrwintheoe
lesened gmatlegtau than detailed seriattot the
Terkel ways is *high his client had been injured,
&ad Gelled epees the plaintiff to suPPort the
Urea:l4lde= 71liethire,rrto IhBaBvel be
cotlks at
ill each. His occupation or the dairy commenced
on the 4th February. All went on well the first
year; be paid the &et year's rent, and it was agreed
that they were to go es the second year in
theism. way. The second year the defendant put
is? heifers and took oat two or three cows. He
estimated his lose by this at t2l. They were kept
upon wheat straw the seeped year,and were not able
to get up when they lay down. One of the cows
calved is Felnuary during the second year, and had
the scalar, but he could not eay what was the cause
of the scouring. He consiAend he lost £7 by that.
When he first took the dairy there was plenty of
water, lint during the second year the cattle suffered
from the wield it During the seoond year the defen-
deet, instead of supplying good hay for the cattle,
sent straw and dust, His lose by such food being
supplied he estimated at no. Another part of his
bargain was he amnia have plenty of straw for his
pigs ; hat daring the latter part of the second year
he had none, and he estimated he lost by that £3.
Half of the cows ought to have calved by Candlemas.
Eleven of the cows calved after the 6th April. They
ought to have calved half in February, and half in
March. —Mr. Freeman inquired of plaintiff if it
was the custom in that part of the country for cows
to calve about that time.—llis Honor: How can
you oak such a question? Can any man make a cow
calve when he liken.—Examinetion continued:
Both the eons and nine would have been worth
more if the calves had been dropped in February.
The sewed year Mr. Baker did not come often to
see him, and when he did come, and plaintiff corn.
pinned to him, he answered him very roughly. His
pods lied been &strained for rent by the dein.
deal. No account was rendered to him. —Crese-ex-
imbued by Mr. Atkissoo : Did not take the best of
his goods sway by night, nor by day; all he took
was some rhino of little value. He hired a man
to take his things away. Don't know how much his
thieve sold for. His bone and cart were not taken
away. Had no
.property in this part of the country.
Had bowie, pearl by shares in a building society,
but they were not worth much to him. It wee the
custom to draft out some of the cows, and pot
heillne in their plane, bat not so many as defendant
bad dose. The cow that scoured calved in the
beginning of February, or end of January, be could
not say which. He did not milk that cow till the
amid of October. Sold the calf for 4.5 e. He believed
he gold it no old May-day. The dust and straw
eaPPlied by the defendant was not sent as extra food
for dry cows. He asked for hay, hut defendant
seat his man. George House, with straw and
rubbish. It was not his duty to take the dry cows
to the straw barton so that they should not tat the
hay. At that time no cows were dry, and if they
had been sent to the straw barton there was nothing
for then there. It was more than three days after
he made the complaint to the defendant before he
sent any hay. Plaintiff was sometimes absent from
the dairy for 10 days together, but left his
wife and father to take charge of the cows. Mr.
Baker never made an allowance to him of as. 64.
per week out of his rent for every cow which
calved after May-day. Was summoned at the
last Court for £45 for rent .owing to Mr. Baker.
Had not received any order from this Court
to pay £5O in two instalments of £25 each.
Did not send in any claim for loss sustained till
after receiving the County Court summons. His
solicitor made out the claim since that Court. He
gave up the cows on the 22nd December, without
any notice, and left them unruilked. His term was
up
on the 14th February. The reason he gave them
up was because sufficient food was not allowed for
them. House only brought about a handful for each
of the animals, and be complained of the quantity.
Before he gave up the dairy he told Mr. Baker he
could not go on if he did not come to terms, to
which he replied— "Terms be d— ; I'm determined
to have every farthing, or send thee to Dorchester."
The reason he gave up the dairy was because be
could not keep on through the unfair treatment he
had received at the hands of the defendant. —Mary
Ann Davis, wife of the plaintiff, said her husband
rented a dairy, in 1861 and 1862, of the defendant.
During the second year the cows were very badly
fed, they were all bones. During the latter
pert of that year Mr. Riker would not allow her
husband to serve the cow, awl they were not
*applied with proper food! They were often
hungry—the hay given them was bad, quite
black, end not fit for food. flhe attended
tb• dear>, acA_eboald say the lons her beehand sus-
tained was cso in batter, cheese, and milk.—Crose-
examined : The clews were badly fed from Novem-
ber to the and of December.—Arthur Davis, son of
the plaintiff, said that during 1662 the cows were
badly fed. They bad straw and dust supplied to
them by Mr. Baker's orders, and given by his man.
His father did not feed them. Witness went with
his father, when he complained of the food, and Mr.
Baker swore at him. and used very violent language.
The quantity sent for the cows be could carry 'leder
his arm. That was supplied for 19 beasts. In con.
sequence of insufficiency of food the cows when they
lay down were not able to rise, and he had helped
them up. He could not my either the day or the
day of the month when he went with his father to
Mr. Baker's. The hay he saw carried by Mr.
Baker's man was laid down to the cows, about as
much as a man's hat, and sometimes less. —Frederick
Forward, an old man, corroborated the evidence of
the preceding winner as to the bad state of the cows,
*biota he attributed chiefly to their want of water,
and also stated that the quantity of hay supplied was
very small. He believed his son lost £2O by the
cows not being properly fed. They were very poor
when he lest saw them, Just before ChriAmaa—This
closed the case for the plaintiff.—Mr. Atkinson, on
behalf of his client, contended that no case had been
made out that the loss alined to have been sustained
by the plaintiff was mead throngh the non-fulfil-
mint of the contract by Mr. Baker. Indeed, his
instructions were that it was entirely the plaintiff's
own bolt that be had got into difficulties, through
neglecting his duties. There was one point he
wished particularly to call the attention of the jury
to, and tbst Inane word was heard of this loss before
the plaintiff was served with an anion for rent. The
whole of the statements made by the plaintiff he
should be able to controvert, and the ninon why his
client would not allow the plaintiff to keep on feed-
ing the cows was became he most &amefully neg-
lected thew Mr. Atkinson then went through the
various charges made by the plaintiff for loss /A's.
tamed, all of which, he contended, could not be
supported, as they weresnjust ones.—Mr. G. Baker.
farmer, of Hilton, said that Davis took the dairy of
him in 1861, 24 cows sad six heifers, and he gave
him one heifer in the bargain. All went on well,
the rent was paid at the rate of fl I per head. The
conditions were the rime the second year. The
dairy was taken at the same rent the earns numbers
of cows sod heifers, and the same feed. The scouring
cow alluded wa One which calved the last week
in Jantiary. t purchased the calf of plaintiff,
either in April or May, for Ms. After that Dens
complained that that cow did not do so well as the
rest, and got a driak for it; bat no scouring took
place till tb. November following, when the frost set
in. During the second year Davis was supplied with
sufficiest food for tbe cattle. When be asked for bay he
bed it. Defepdant had, since plaintiffgave up the cow.,
sold some of them which were barreners for £l6.
As regarded thorn* and straw which it was alleged
was supplied instead of hay, it was sent by his
orders. They had been thrashing, and this was the
refuse, and be ordered it to be given to the dry
beasts, and not the leachers. It was man food,
above and beyond the hay supplied twine a day.
At the time the cows were given up be was ill with
a quiecy in his throat, and be asked several of his
neighbours to go and see the cows. Plaintiff had
had occasion to complain of the waste defendant
made; once he saw his bone with a great quantity of
hay under its feet. According to the agreement he
made with the plaintiff be was to take ta 6d. per
week off his rent for all cows not calved previous to
May-day; but all the cows did calve previous to
that date. Cross-examined by Mr. Freeman Could
not exactly say bow many acres of gram land were
let with the dairy. Sheep and bones aught stray
as the land. After the cows were brought to his
yard they were put with his, but he knew his own
cows, and weld swear to them among a hundred.
The harmers Mr. Beseiter sold were three of his
own, and two of Dane's.—The banister sold by Mr.
Itemilier for £lB was Gee of Mr. Devise lot—As
there not being straw for plantar@ pigs,
t averred there was abandaans—once they
came for straw, hots. they required it for thatching
be told them to go to another barn a short distance
el.—George House said he was a labourer, working
for Mr. Baker, and resided at Hilton. Mr. Baker
gave him instructions to 'apply the tens with as ninth
tagria they needed, without wasling. The hay was
dark, but the ewe ate it well enough. He
took the hay aa much es he weld carry tied with a
rape mos a-day. whilst the cows had pleat, of graze,
and twice when they had sot. The cows were in
good condition, more like grazing cows than
nakilearn —Gawp. Story, terser of Houghton, said
be reeollecbsd seeing thereon the day after Davis
save them up. He west to leek as them, at Mr.
Bsker'e request • they were in good condition.
The sows be histi:ned to be the semi ash. hid seen,
while in Deeis'e pommies, being maid by his
ooselnded the 'vides/ea—Mr. F. W.
Tasman ties addressed the jury on behalf of the
pointing out to this bow very unressoso
able it was to suppose that his Client would Diesel
htirata2.olollbe Heed, and thee bring misery upon
sad his family. He also pointed oat the
probability there was that the tows sold by Mr.
Roositer saiskit have bees ism belonging to the
deksdast, sami embeimisd that without the jury