Farmer claims bull was neither ‘quiet nor fruitful’

David Hurley

Reporter:

David Hurley

A JUDGE dismissed the case of a farmer who sued a cattle dealer claiming a bull he bought from him last summer was “neither quiet nor fruitful”.

A JUDGE dismissed the case of a farmer who sued a cattle dealer claiming a bull he bought from him last summer was “neither quiet nor fruitful”.

Simon Broderick, 66, of Drinagh, Buttevant, County Cork sued Patrick Ryan, 37, of Ballyfusteen, Ballylanders at the small claims court.

Mr Broderick told the court his claim for €1,700 damages related to the loss of a “high yield” dairy cow which he said had to be put down because the bull was too rough with the animal.

In his evidence, he said he bought the bull from Mr Ryan last July on the understanding that the animal was both quiet and fruitful.

However, he claimed this was not the case and he said he believed the bull had injured his cow to such an extend that it had to be put down.

He told the court, the cow sustained nerve, leg and hip damage shortly after he let the bull into the field.

“He was very rough with the cows, he was chasing them around for about 12 hours,” he said adding that the cow had been “perfect” when he checked her that morning.

Mr Broderick said that a number of weeks after the incident he sold the bull to a knackery at Castleisland Mart.

However, this was disputed by Mr Ryan who said he had established the bull was not sold to a factory and was instead sold on to another farmer and is currently “residing” in County Meath.

However, the claimant said he was not aware of this and he insisted he had sold the bull at the mart as “suitable for slaughter”.

After cross examining the claimant, Mr Ryan submitted to the court that Mr Broderick had not proven that the bull was responsible for the cow’s injuries.

Judge Eugene O’Kelly agreed and in the absence of a report from the vet which treated the injured cow, he said he was not satisfied the claimant had made a case.

In dismissing Mr Broderick’s claim the judge also cited discrepancies between his direct evidence and papers he lodged with the court in advance of the hearing.