TRANSACTION IN HORSES

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 253, 20 July 1920, Page 5

TRANSACTION IN HORSES

Yesterday afternoon Mr, W. G. Riddell, S.M., heard a civil action in which William Alfred Cottle, farmer, Lower Hutt, proceeded against the Dominion Ferrolith Company, Ltd., to recover the sum of cC42 in respect to the sale and purchase of two horses. A cheque for the amount was given, but payment was stopped because it was alleged that the hnrses were not. what they were represented to be. The defendant company counter-claimed, and stated that on March 10, 1920, the company through its servants enterotd into negotiations with tho plaintiff for the purchase of two horses, which were required for work in the company's business at the Lower Hutt; that it was made known.to ttito plaintiff that the horses were wanted for lorry work, and it was warranted by the plaintiff tfffil thio horses tiad been trained for and could do such work It'was subsequently found, said tho defendants, that tho horses hnd not been trained for lorry work, and were quite unfit for the work they were required to do, and tho purchase of tho horses was repudiated bv the company. While the company did not admit that the property in the animals passed to it,'it claimed that if tho property had passed to it, then it wns entitled to damages for breach of warMr 'M. F. Luckie appeared for tho plaintiff, and Mr. H. F. O'Lenry for the defendant company. According to the evidence the driver nmuloyed by tho company was asked to look around and select two horses for lorry work. He went to Cottle's place, where line was shown two horses, and was told hv tho plaintiff that they had not been broken. Later tho engineer of the company saw the horses, and was told that th'ev were the ones selected by the driver. Tt was alleged that the engineer was told by the plaintiff that they had beon broken to traces ami had done camp work. I The Magistrate said the case was a most unsatisfactory one, but he thought that on tho evidence the plaintiff was entitled to recover. He gave judgment accordingly for ,&ifl, but disallowed .£2 commission Costs Jis ISs. were allowed. The. counter-claim was dismissed.