RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, CROMWELL.

Dunstan Times, Issue 652, 16 October 1874, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, CROMWELL.

Friday, October 9th. (Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., R.M.) Parsons v. Anderson—There being no appearance of plaintiff or defendant the case was struck out. Alexander Cameron v. Timothy Gormon. —Claim for L2O for loss occasioned through tho defendant having unlawfully deprived the plaintiff of the use of a colt. Mr Wilson for plaintiff; defendant in person. The plaintiff deposed that he had missed the horse for a period of two years, and only the other day saw it on the Flat in the possession of the defendant ; that he thereupon claimed it. Had branded it himself, and had no doubt as to its being his property. It was about five years old. Had sold the mare to Mr John Wrightson, but not the colt, nor had he authorise! any person to dispose of the same. By defendant : Learnt, some six months ago, that the colt now sue! for was in the possession of the defendant. Had sold the dam to Mr Bennett, of Quartzvillo, and fot which he held a receipt. By the Court: He live! about three hundred yards from the defendant, but had not thought it necessary to call upon him respecting the colt, which, until six months ago he believed was running on the Flat. He had been asked by the defendant whether the colt belonged to any other person, and had stated that it did not. Had seen Wnghtson handling the colt, but did not ask him any questions about it. When he borrowed the LlO he gave the mare as security, but afterwards raffled it obtaining Wrightson’s consent to that course. Wrightsou had never, so far as witness knew, been paid for breaking in the colt. Knew it had been running at Mount Pisa Station, and he had never paid anything.

Re-examined : When he borrowed the LlO Wrightson and he were working together. This was four years ago. Remembered rightson telling him that he had made out the writing, and showed it to him, which he signed. Could not relate the exact words, as he could neither read or write. Owed Wrightson money at the present time. [Receipt produced which purported to be an absolute sale note for the colt from plaintiff to Wrightson, for Lls.] Would not swear that the mark thereto affixed was not the same as the one hehad put his X to. The document was only a security. Had been paid for the mare, hut not for the colt, and he was not indebted for the breakingin of it. Considered tho latter was his property. Wrightson knew that plaintiff had paid for cutting and branding colt. Wm. Todd resided at Cromwell, and was a miner. Never had a conversation with Clormon about the beast. Was present when Wrightson asked the plaintiff for a sittlement of affairs. He alss referred to the colt, and requested a squaring up. This was in last May. Know nothing of the transaction.—'l his was plaintiff’s case. John Elliott Beattie, being sworn, deposed : He recollected selling the colt to defendant. Ho believed it belonged to Mr Wrightson. Was authorized by him to sell same. Knew the colt since he was a foal. It was brokon-in by Wrightson. Sold it fork 10. Valued it at L2O. When it was a foal believed it belonged to Cameron, hut had thereafter been sold to Wrightson. Had run the colt in on several occasions for Wrightson. Got money from, and had for, as Wrightson’s agent, paid for the grazing of the colt. Paid Mr I. Loughuan, Never received any money from plaintiff.

By Mr Wilson : Cameron had never asked witness to look a f ter the colt, nor had any conversation ensued about the colt after he had been broken-in. On last Tuesday Cameron had an interview with witness about the matter, which was to the effect that plaintiff would sue Gormon for its value. »

John Wrightson : On or about the 17th April, IS7I, the plaintiff came to witness’s house, and asked him for the loan of some money, but as he was then indebted to him in the sum of L 5, or LG, he refused, but agreed to let him have a further sum of LlO provided he gave him a receipt for the mare and foal, which he undertook to do ; but on going home he met with an accident. The next time witness saw plaintiff he got the receipt produced. The sale was bona fidelymade. The plaintiff kept increasing his score, particularly when he had noprospect of paying. Had received L 6 9s from plaintiff in two sums, but this was for billiards and house accommodation. Hearing that he was going to raffle the mare, spoke to him about fee difference existing between them, and he promised to settle up after the raffle. Did not do so at the time, but about a mouth afterwards witness saw him, and being unable to get payment, told him ho would keep the colt, and and the bargain and tlie sale thereof was then effected. Witness, at this time had a claim against the plaintiff for LlB 17s Last May, heard for the first time that Cameron claimed the colt. Then told him that be,was going to sell the colt. By Mr Wilson: Wrote our the’ receipt himself. Told him that if he paid back the money within a reasonable time he would Ist him have the colt back. Cameron had not given truthful evidence. Had broken

the colt in himself. Instructed the witness Beattie tqsell him. - it was to sell the beast and not the chance. He meant by saying that plaintiff was a “ handy man at the table,"not at » dining table, but at billiards. Witnesa origin ally had' an ’hotel at the Gorge, and the plaintiff was in the habit of running np a score, which he generally let stand for a considerable time. The plaintiff had frequently seen him when he was engaged breaking-in the colt and never laid claim to the animal till a month or two since. When he got the colt it was not worth much, hut had "since grown into a good four-year old. Would swear the receipt produced by him was the one signed by plaintiff, and if necessary witness would corroborate this statement. Had reaped no benefit by the raffle of the mare, and in fact considered he had lost through the colt. In his opinion the plaintiff was still indebted to him.

His Worship had no doubt but that the sale of the colt was bona fide, and that it was thoroughly understood between all parties concerned. Holding this view Mr Wrightson had every right to sell the same It appeared to the Court that this was a very loose case on the plaintiffs part, and that the defendant had been greatly inconvenienced and unnecessarily annoyed. It must be remembered that when the colt was sold it was young and unbroken, and its present value could not be taken as its market value when Wrightson let the mare go to accommodate the plaintiff. Both sides agreed that the colt had lawfully gone out of the plaintiff’s possession, the only question being whether it was sold absolutely, or merely assigned by way of security. He certainly thought the sale could not be misconstrued. Plaintiff! wanted to reap the full benefit of getting the colt broken-iu for nothing, the grazing for nothing, to owe money for four years, and then when the animal had become valuable, to deny the sale of it and recover its present value, notwithstanding that it had passed to a third party for good consideration. The Court could not take this view, and judgment would therefore be for the defendant with costs, and a decree made that the colt should become the property of the defendant Gorman. SLAUGHTERING LICENSES. A slaughtering license was granted to Mr Edward Thompson, of the Nevis; and another to Mr C. Todd, of Shepherd's Creek.