LOSS OF RACEHORSE

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 33, 9 February 1933, Page 6

LOSS OF RACEHORSE

KARORI FARMER'S CLAIM

JURY AWARDS £140 DAMAGES

■ Finality was reached yesterday afternoon, after "The Post" went to press, in the hearing of the claim for £500 damages made in the Supreme Court by. Osmond D_ey, Karori farmer, against A. S. Paterson and Company, Ltd., for the i loss of, an Agrion—Crete untrained three-year-old colt, which had to be destroyed after having been run into on the main road at Trentham by a petrol tank wagon, driven by an employee of the'defendant company. The jury awarded the plaintiff £140 damages. The two questions involve 4 in the case were: (1) Who was to blame for the accident, the .petrol wagon driver or the

colt a attendant; and (2) i£ the petrol wagon driver, what was a fair value to place on the colt as damages'to the plaintiff. Apart from the witnesses called on the question of negligence, experts, on' both sides, as reported in ye"sterda.j_ "Post" gave evidence as to what they considered the colt was worth, their views and valuations varying considerably. • ~ D i-\ S". mi Dg .' _* Chief -Justice' (Sir Michael Myers) said that if any of the jury were motorists they-would know that a dog.or perhaps a fowl, run over by' a vehicle, generally turned out, by a coirt cidenee if .it lived, to ie very-" val_-" able. JFrom this, however, the jury must not assume he was.reflecting upon the value of the colt. The difficulty iri- this' - case was that there was no standard by which to find the value of the horse,- and'thejury would simply have,to'do'the best they could from the material before them. Ifc was no use reasoning the matter out along the .lines that Limond's progeny, brought good prices this year Limond was not the sire of-the plaintiff's

colt. It was/only the grandsire, the sire being Agrion. His Honour said it 'would not surprise him if the:jury thought a valuation of £500 was grossly extrava» pntand that £25 or £30 was t_ little. That; was all he could say to them. His Honour pointed out to. the jury, that the question of the value to be placed; on the colt arose only if they, found that on the question of negligence the plaintiff was "entitled to a verdict. ; On this point there was a conflict o£ testimony. His Honour then proceeded to review the evidence. .*•-•-.'"'- ..'.■-.;"'.-.%*; '~ ' The jury were out considering their ver--diet"approximately an hour.'" . - r His Honour entered judgment; for the plaintiff'for the amount; awarded by the jury,' with costs according■ rto".scale;'- witnesses' expenses, and disbursements; .At the hearing Mr. B. 0. Cahill ap-. pedred for the plaintiff, and Mr. M. O. Barnett/with" Mr.-T.: P; Cleary, for the .defendant,company.... ..,..',