Original image on Facebook
Buntingford Farmers' Dispute
Action at Hertford Assizes
Farmer Swoons in the Witness Box
An action was brought before the Lord Chief Justice of England, Baron Hewart, at the Herts. Assizes, at the Shire Hall, Hertford, on Tuesday, June 22nd, by Mr George Borlase, of Cumberlow Green Farm, Rushden, near Buntingford, to recover damages against Mr William J. Williams, of Ashdown Farm, Hare Street, Buntingford, for wrongfully detaining a thrashing machine lent to him in May, 1924, and not returned until July, 1925. Mr Lilley appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Grafton Prior for the defendant.
Counsel for the plaintiff stated in opening the case that the parties were farmers and friends, and in May 1924, the defendant asked paintiff to lend him his thrashing machine to do a few days' thrashing. It was lent with the intimation that the plaintiff, who had then finished thrashing, would required to have it back again by the following harvest.
That thrashing machine was not returned until July 1925, three or four months after the issue of the wrist in these proceedings. Meanwhile the defendant had made use of the thrashing machine himself and had also hired it out to neighbouring farmers.
Those the defendant's books which the plaintiff had been able to inspect - not all of them - clearly disclused the fact that the defendant had let the machine out on hire to no less than 31 farms. Part of the damages would there be to take account of the profit which the defendant made by the use of the plaintiff's machine.
The damages were placed under the following four heads:
(1) The cost of hiring a thrashing machine to thrash his own corn after the harvest of 1924, £60;
(2) depreciation of the value of the machine and cost of alterations and repairs, £60;
(3) loss by damage to corn which sprouted owing to the fact that the plaintiff was unable to get another machine, £82;
(4) profits obtained by the defendant from letting the machine out on hire to other farmers, £100.
The Judge: What does a new machine of this kind cost?
Counsel: About £300.
Your are not asking for a new machine? - No.
Continuing, counsel said that before the plaintiff and the defendant came to Hertfordshire they were neighbours in Cornwall, and were very friendly. They used to buy stock from one another, and there was an account between them. At the time this machine was borrowed the plaintiff owed the defendant £100, and that was to be set off against his claim.
When the plaintiff in August, 1924, asked for the return of the machine the defendant promised to do so, but failed to keep his promise. He afterwards applied several times, but the machine was not returned. In March, 1925, litigation was commenced, and in July, 1925, the machine was returned.
The plaintiff gave evidence in support of counsel's statement. In cross-examination he denited that the defendant ever pressed him for a settlement of their accounts. In consequence of not getting back his machine he had to hire another one from a Mr Stick. Asked if the defendant had ever pressed him to pay his account, plaintiff replied: "Oh, no never. He simply said, 'Oh, go on boy; that's all right'."
Didn't you really let him have the machine because you owed him this money? - No, but when my men took the machine to him he said to them "It shall never go back any more."
The Judge: Don't you think that showed that you let him have the machine because you owed him £100? - No.
Counsel for defendant: Do you know your own machine? - What do you take me for? What a silly question to ask. (Laughter).
Mr Harry Goode, agricultural engineer, of Royston, was called to state that his charge for repairing the machine after it was returned was £55. In cross-examination the Judge elicited the fact that this witness sold the machine to the plaintiff in September, 1923, for £120, and it was then 22 years old.
Mr Thomas John Stick, farmer, and agricultural machinist, Mr John Henley, foreman to the plaintiff, and Mr William Aldridge, formerly in the defendant's employ, also gave evidence.
Mr Prior for the defence, said that he admitted having the thrashing machine and using it, but that he was always prepared to pay for it if the plaintiff would only come to an arrangement to settle the outstanding account.
The defendant (Mr Williams) stated that at the time he borrowed the machine the plaintiff (Mr Borlase) owed him £183 for cows, bulls, and other stock, and he still owed it to him. He had never paid a penny on account. Nothing whatever was said as to terms when he borrowed the thrashing machine, neither as to paying for it or as to how long he was to keep it.
Were you to pay him anything for the use of the machine? - No mention was made about paying anything.
It was pointed out to him that in the correspondence at first they were very friendly and addressed each other as "Dear George" and "Dear Will," but afterwards Mr Williams altered his attitude - Yes, replied defendant, when Mr Borlase sent me several nasty letters I said I would not have anything more to do with him, and asked him to pay me what he owed me.
What damage has Mr Borlase suffered by your retaining his machine? - None. I have had damage through not being paid for my bulls and cows that he has had since 1923.
Mr Williams was then cross-examined as to the documents he had been asked to produce, and why he had suppressed some that were material to the case, and he replied that he did not think they were material.
The Lord Chief Justice then sternly remarked: Do you know that nothing is so prejudicial to your case in these courts as the suppression of documents?
Mr Williams faltered, and fell head-long out of the witness-box on the floorof the court with a heavy thud. His wife, who was in the gallery, and the police ran to his assistance, whilst the hall-keeper hurriedly fetched a glass of water. The defendant soon recovered, and was able to say "I felt giddy," but he looked very much shaken, and no further questions were asked of him by the plaintiff's counsel.
Evidence was given by Mr Grigg, of Cockhampstead Farm, Braughing, Mr Fred Dowton, of Cottered, and others for the defence.
His Lordship said that in his opinion the plaintiff was clearly entitled to succeed, and he awarded him £81 14s. 9d. after deducting the £100 owing to the defendant, the defendant to pay costs.
(From the Herts. Mercury).
