TAURANGA R.M. COURT.

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume I, Issue 26, 30 November 1872, Page 3

TAURANGA R.M. COURT.

[Before Uzsnx Ciaivsck, Esq,, Rir, and Major RoBEItT.-,.] J nxry^ eskhs?.—One man charged with this cdonee was ordered to pay a due of' 5* and costa or in default b .• for 2d hours. ’ Civil Casks. OKXi.i3 \ bo no, Claim, 7s for goods sold and delivered. Captain Korrs* staled that hia only of jeut hi summoning for so small &n amount was, xt possible, to pum-h tile de/endant, who had left lat- (Ai!s.,£ ice and had uchuvcd in a very improper manner about tin: transaction.—Tho case was adjourned until next Court day. McAltstki: t Bill.—Claim, £3 3s 9d for grazing iiorsca at the request, of the defendant.— i he oefi-aujnt. pleaded not indebted.—Plaintiff stated that on tetnporarilv leaving his firm at Olumastdi he hud appointed Mr Craig to act as his agent in the collect ion ot monies for grazing, <.vf. wu account hod boon presented to defendant, cuargoig idu: a! the rate ' ?■ per ho <~<er week 1 r f ; zhig. Tills had h objected' to, and 3mn.'(ejaentl v a cerrce. r;::i ms uevue out aud

delivered to defendant at the r.iU- of la fid | H?I , lioad pot* beast. The in ui » were f : jh -,,t reasonable, and tho dates i. .‘ . Dd in , r ,f particulars were correct. Deiond.Mit denies, the. authority of Mr Craig as his agent, and he (plaintsib) therefore brought this action to recover amount- claimed. Mr Craig had collected other monies on Isis behalf, ami generally .acted “as his authorised agent. Andrew Craig gave evidence confirmatory of phiintiir* statement.' On crossexiumna'ion by dehuid.-tnf, witness stated that luo account in quest ion was nvuic out. as due to him unci not to pam* dt. but be had frequent Iv done ao with other scatters connected whli McAlister, and only acted as agent. not nrimdpui .--The defendant admitted the claim, but denied Mr Craid’s authority ns agent for plaint id’--Tho Bench enre judgment for full amount and costs. Bll.r. v CkalQ.—Claim, ,l’o 15s, heirp for use of horse belonging to trie plaint UK and alleged to have been ridden by defendant without first obtaining permission, £ I ; driving sheep at the request, of tho defendant (self end horse). ID ; ami for illegal delivery of lmi*«t> b-f; in charge of defendant by plnintis!’, ;C-t —I) H M Bill depend that, on one otvi-mui he accompanied a genfieiium who wonted to buy a horse to defendant’* farm, for the purpose of endeavouring to soil a horse lie had running on Craig’s land. Upon arrival be toned f isc horse had evidently been ridden—ho was sweating. He iohi defendant “ that sod of work wouldn’t do,” as he paddocked the horse for rest and not to bo worked. Ho did nut dispose of the horse, and claimed I for use of horse ansi compensation, ’Regarding his charge of 15s for driving sheep, he had done ao at the request of defendant;, and ho considered the charge was fair and reasonable. He also claimed if f from defendant- for illegally delivering a horse ho had pad docked with Craig, whereby he had sustained a loss of a similar amount. The horse in question belonged to a man named Buredeni, who, owing plamtilJ’ some money, had left it m security for payment of the same. He toid defendant, when ho left the horse with him, not; to hand it over to anybody but himself. JBurslom had, however, taken away the horse by consent of defendant, and he had consequently lost Ins money. Defendant held plaintiff responsible for grazing charges, and Burslem was not known in the matter at nil. If the horse had not been given over to Burslem ho would have been paid the amount owing to him, hence his claim against tho defendant.-Crosa-oxa mined : Ifo permanent injury was done to horse when ridden } considered, charge for driving sheep fair and reasonable. Gave order produced to deliver horse to Burslem on tied December, but no subsequent order distinctly stated second time horse was paddoeked that it was not to bo delivered to Bur.-)cm without authority. Had no document to show that said horse had been loft, by Burslom with him as security for money lent;; never entered any action against Burslom to recover amount duo him ; considered horse as sufilcicut security. Defendant was entirely responsible to him for tho hors© and not to Burslem.— Gh orge Cummings said ho saw Burslem’s horso in defendant’s paddock after 3rd December j knew that it was being trained for tho races. On one occasion remembered plaint iff blaming defendant for lotting Burslom ride tho horse without first obtaining his consent ; ho also hoard Bursler. admit that, ha owed Bill porno money..—John Homorvillo, a hoy about ton years old, gave confirm©*ory evidence.-—Andrew Craig, in defence, and referring to the first item—-riding plaintilTs horse v. Ithout. consent —said he had used tho homo In bis own horse in, and it was only ridden nb*>ui >en minutes. No damage was dorp to the animal, He w.mid admit the charge for driving she- n very friendly with plaintiff, and did not, look upon tho services be h:>«l rendered as a mere luring. He bad no idea of any charge being made by plaint ilf until the other dav. Respecting tho last item ho had distinct*y fold Bill, when he left tho horse, that h« could not; prevent tho owner (Burslom) taking it if lie desired to do so. Ho had also received order from plaintiff for delivering horse to Burslom, dated 3rd December ; and after the r-ceond time plaintiff ptuldoeked tho horse RursDni frequently publicly rode ft in tho township, and defendant must have been aware that it was being trained for the races. He did nob consider ho had any power to detain the horso when Burslem demanded it,; the morn so as ho had received order previously from pmintiu for delivering tho horse to Burslom.—f'n.u hied i Tho 1 ;or,«o was probably worth ;C5 ; never tried to buy horso. JSurolom used to ride animal in township between 5 and 7 on summer evenings,—Tho Bench disallowed plaintiff’s <.h>m for'£4 for illegal delivery of mare, on the ground that ho had shown no legal claim thereto, and that defendant had no power to prevent owner from Inking possession of !ii» o ’>’ll property. Judgment would bo given for pi-. it:;-if, £1 5s ;Ir,d costs’. This concluded tho business.