THE FARMER'S MAGAZINE. 



413 



an action, and recover damages for it ; but in the present 

 case the plaintiff sought larga damages for the infliction of a 

 great wrong. The defendant should show that the cattle 

 were all sonud, as warranted. The plaintiff would prove that 

 they were not sound ; and the case B'ould eventuate in an in- 

 quiry as to the aniouut of damages. The plaintiff resided iu 

 the county Carlow; he held several grass farms in the county 

 Kildare. lie possessed 1,S()0 acres (f feeding laud. The de- 

 fendant, Mr. AValti-T M'Uouough, liviul near Ballinasloe, county 

 Galway. He was one of the nicst extesisive stock farmers in 

 the county. He held vast tracts of land in Galway, Roscom- 

 mon, Mayo, and the Kins'ii County. In a great degree he 

 confined himself to the rearing of stock. Upon the 4th of Oc- 

 toher the fair of Biillinasloe besjan. Upon the 2ud of October, 

 1857, the plaintiff was at the fair of Moate, and purchased from 

 a Mr. Hudson ten large bullocks. Upon the 8th of October, 

 the day of the sale of black cattle at Ballinasloe, he purchased 

 tlie heifers of the defendant. It was desirable to purchase 

 cattle from one person whose respectability was a guarantee 

 for the soundness of the animals which he sold. The defendant 

 had his cattle separate and apart from others, under the great 

 wall of L-rd Clancarty's demesne, in lota of 30 each. The 

 plaintiff had previously sutT„Ted in consequence of having pur- 

 chased unsound cattle, and on this occasion he adopted the 

 wise and prudent course of making particular inquiries of the 

 vendors, and in every instance insi;tiug upon engagements. 

 Accordingly, he proceeded to the lots of the defendant and 

 made particular inquiries whether they were sound. He was 

 informed that he might rest satisfied, as he (defeiid.int) had 

 reared every one of them from calves, and he had not a single 

 case of distemper or d:sea5e amongst hij various lat/ds for the 

 last two or three years. He was asked for an engagement, 

 and he undertook and did give an ni.do'ibted warranty. The 

 plaintiff purchased two of the lota. No. 7 and No. 8, each con- 

 sisting of 30 heifers, at £12 ISs per head. With these lota he 

 did not find fault, because he considered that the disease was 

 confined to lot No. 11. The plaintiff was afterwards solicited 

 to inspect lots Nos. 10 and 11. The defendant pledged him- 

 self to their quality ; as he said every onu of them had been 

 rearcl by hiiuaelf, he (piaintiir) need not be afraid, as he would 

 e:i;;age erery one of them, and if he wonli consent to take the 

 cattle he might pay him in any way he thou -ht proper. The 

 plaintiff was, accordingly, induced to buy lot No. 10 at the 

 rate of £12 las. per head, and to purchase evcutnally the re- 

 msining hit, No. 11. He i:kewise purchasad ten bullocks from 

 Lord Asiitown. These heifers were brought to Carlow ; they 

 stepped at intervals alon^ the road, atd were taken cave of by 

 a trustworthy servant. Upon the ] 2th October they stopped 

 at Mr. Johust.ii's, of Aliltowu, uear Athy, where they were per- 

 mitted to remain for the night. Mr. Juhnsou observed that 

 two of the hei.ers labjuied ni.der tuc disease; cue o them 

 being considerably worse than the other, and he considered 

 that the lot was fiistempered. The cattle were removed to a 

 farm of the plsiiitiff'.s, which was situate a few miles from Car- 

 lo'* (Garryhindon). The plaintiff saw the cattle in the morn- 

 ing, aiid he perceived that oiis; of them was distemptred. He 

 separated the diseased beast from the rest. She was so Lad 

 that he sent her to Smithfield at once ; and instead of selling 

 her, they were at once obliged to slaughter her. In a few days 

 another heifer iu lot No. 11 exhibited symptoms of distemper : 

 170 beasts in all became infected with and displaced symptoms 

 of this latent infirmity and disease. It appeared that the 

 disease, which first exhibited itself upon the continent, was in 

 the jear 1342 or 1843 introduced into Ireland. A post- 

 mortem examination of the animal plainly demonstrated that 

 it was a disease which grew upon it day after day. The affec- 

 tion V as this — the lungs adhered to the side, fastened, as it 

 were, by ligatures ; it was difficult to tear the lung from the 

 side, and became necessary, in fact, to tear them asunder. The 

 period of development ranged from three to six wee'ns, and this 

 fact coincided remarkably with the present case. The learned 

 counsel then read several letters which parsed between the 

 plaintiff and the defendant. In reply to a communication from 

 the plaintiff to the defendant, written on the 20th of October, 

 1857, he (defendant) stated " that he had no sickness amongst 

 his cattle for two or three years ; that lot No. 11 were not fed 

 upon the same farm as the others had been ; that the latter, 

 which he had since, were yearlings, and had been fed iu Kos- 

 commoD, where no !<ickT:ess had been for three years; that lot 

 No. 11 bad beeu bought last April with others which had been 

 sold only in September to the butchers at Balliuaaloe, and that 



there hiul not been any complaint from any quarter in refer- 

 ence to them. The plaintiff examined more closely lot No. 11, 

 and discovered that they could not have been reared by the 

 defendant. Some of them had different brands, and some 

 were not branded at all. This lot he separated from the other?. 

 He kept lut No, 11 at the farm to which they had lirit gone, 

 and he icat'cred the rent among his other farms. The result, 

 however, was that the infection spread. On tiie 1st of Novem- 

 ber, 1857, the plaintiff wrote to the de'endaut, stating that he 

 was sorry at being obliged to inform him that he had four cf 

 the heifers of lot No. 11 very bad with the \i\ng distemper — 

 that there must have been some disease in that lot for a conci- 

 derable time, although he (defendant) might not have been 

 aware of the fact, and that he was preparing to send them by 

 a float, as the railway company would not take sick cattle in 

 their trucks. The defendant did not answer these cr other 

 leiters. There was a complete examination of lot No. 11. A 

 Mr. Shaughuessy acted on behalf of the defendant. The 

 plaintiff' said that there must have been some disease amoni.st 

 the cattle. Shaughnessy was rather reserved in his manner, 

 but he said he was certain the defendant could have warranted 

 every lot from No. 1 to No. 10. It wonli seem that lot No. 11 

 wai a mixed lot, which had been collected for the purpose of 

 rapid sale. It was arrsnged that the cattle should be shipped 

 to Liverpool, and disposed of there. A proposition was made 

 to leave the matter to the arbitration of two respectable and 

 experienced gentlemen ; but tliis was not carried into effect. 

 On the 27th of November, 1857, a letter was written by the 

 plaintiff toMr. Shaughnessy, teliinghim thatbehad been obliged 

 to ship six of the heifers that day, and three cf them on the 

 previous day, in all eleven ; and that " it was surely madness 

 in the defend.uit not to give instructions to him iu reference to 

 what he desired to be done with the remainder, as the loss 

 would auJ must eventually fall upon him" (defendant). On 

 the 28th November, 1857, another letter was written by th.3 

 plaintiff to the defend<int, to which tiiere was not any reply. 

 Upon the SOlhof November annther letter followed, complain- 

 i:ig that six more of the cattle were ill, and informing him that 

 ha should send them f IT that very night, requirinj; instructions 

 as to wh&t he should do with thecjctie, and expressing his 

 firm conviction that all of them would (tie. After this the 

 plaint ff announced that three more of the be-i.'ts were sick of 

 the di^^temper, and that prompt mcasiires were required un the 

 p^rt of the defendant, otherwise they could not he rescued 

 from the disea?e, and the loss consequent upon the distemper 

 could not he averted. 



The p'aintiff deposed as follows : — He is an extensive grazier, 

 holdio:-'- about 1,500 acres of Ixnd, chiefly iu Carlow and Kil- 

 dare ; he had known the de'endant nearly three yeais; he 

 was a large stock proprietor ; on the 2nd of August he hougiit 

 about tea bullocks from Mr. J. Hudson, at his place, near 

 Athlone ; these were afterwards sf nt home alo;:g with Ihe 

 catth purchased from the defendant ; the 8th rf October vna 

 the black cattle fair day at Balli(;asloe; the deCcudant had a 

 particulir stand by the houi.dary wall of the fair ground, in 

 lots of thirty, so that ti;ey were completely separated from the 

 rest of the cattle ; the warranty given by the defendant wr.s 

 to this effect; he said, "By my honour, my dear fellow, I h.-.vc 

 not had a case of distemper cr disease araougst my c:ittle .''or 

 the List two years ; I have had them almn.t from the tim'j 

 they were calves, and I can warrant every heifer which I have 

 in the fair as sound," and putting his baud upon his shoulder, 

 he said '• Now buy a few lots from me," witness purchased 

 lots Nos. 7 and 8, for £12 15.i. per head; required the cattle 

 with the view of selling them in the following summer; aftfr 

 he had made this purchase from the defendant, he went through 

 the fair and looked at several lots ; he boucht lot No. 10 at 

 the same price; subsequently bought lot No. 11, and with 

 these also the same warranty or engagement was given ; sent 

 lots of the cattle to his different farms, which were separate 

 and far apart iu the county of Carlow ; the disease broke out 

 amongst the cattle in every instance ; the nearest farm to 

 Dublin upon which he had the cattle, except one farm, was 

 forty-four miles. 



Cross-examined by Mr. Battersby, Q C. — One of the heifem 

 had slipped her shoulder, and she died upon the road ; wrote 

 to the defendant in reference to this, and he in a very hand- 

 some manner sent him a £5 note ; he considered tl^ it was 

 a very handsome thing to do, as there was no warranty given, 

 and the defendant was not bound to act as he had done; and 

 this he would say, he very much regretted having bad any 



