RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2927, 6 July 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Yesterday. (Before A. C, Strode, Esq., E.M.) Civil Cases. Knott v. Dunkerly.—Air Harris for plaintiff. L 44 15s Sd on two dishonored acceptances. Judgment by default for plaintiff ior amount claimed together with costs. Thompson and Barclay v. Pritchard. L 45. Mr Edward Cook for the plaintiffs and Mr Stout for defendant. The claim was for wrongful convertion of a horse. The plaintiff Barclay, who is a horse-dealer and carter, in his evidence said that in May, 1871, he became owner of a horse, which he

lent to John I?odium who allowed one Tomlinson to take it away to supply the place of one lent Rodham by him. He (witness) was to have the horse back whenever he chose. No mention was made of paying for its use at that time. Witness was up the country a few months, during which time Rodham went to Victoria, leaving a person named Aitkin in charge to whom he applied for the return of the horse. Aitkin replied “to take him away would break up the team,” and, if he would allow him to remain, if injured, he would give compensation, He had not sold the horse to Rodham. The advantage of lending horses a dealer canuot sell, is saving the cost of keep. He never asked for the horse again until he asked him of Mr Pritchard on the 10th of June. He saw the horse at the Royal George Stables the previous Saturday. Pritchard said he had bought Rodham’s team, and refused to give up the horse which had been sold as part of the team, but thought he could find Rodham in an hour or two. He was not then aware that Rodham was dead. The horse was worth L4O. He gave L3B 10s for him.—John Thompson, one of the plainiiffs, gave similar evidence. — William Aitkin, manager for the late Rodham, stated that the horse was lent to him in place of one taken out of the team by Tomlinson. Barclay asked him for the horse while Rodham was in Melbourne, but allowed it to remain on his (witness’s) promise to give an equivalent for the horse’s work. He gave the promise as agent and manager for Rodham. Thomas Tomlinson, wharf carter, lent the late John Rodham a horse which he had more than a year. There was no stipulation as to charge for hiring. Horses were occasionally lent without charge. It was not usual. He lent the horse to be broken-in. He knew the horse claimed for, and saw it when it was sold in the yard.—Mr Stout, for the defendant, held that the leaving of property in the hands of a person so long as to lead the world to believe he had not only possession but was owner of it, a purchase by an innocent third person should be ratified, and that Barclay and Thomson by their own act had allowed Pritchard to believe Rodham had a right to dispose of the horse.—Edw. Pritchard admitted having bought the horse, and had tested the value at auction. The highest bid was Ll7 10s, for which he would have let him go had there been no dispute as to ownership. Mo was asked to give up the horse by plaintiffs, and refused. He had known the horse for some time as being part of Rodham’s team. —Samuel Moody, lately in Rodham’s employ, waggon driver, had the horse in his team abouo ten months ago. Had :c n the plaintiffs talking with Rodham frequently, and once saw money pass between them just before he went to Melbourne. He worked the horse, and all he could say was Rodham said he bought the horse, meaning thereby a chesnut horse.—Baaz Croshaw was called, but did not appear in answer to his subpoena.—Mr Pritchard, being recalled, said he refused to give evidence. —Mr Stout applied for an adjournment in order to obtain nis evidence.

The case was adjourned for an hour. On the Court resuming, Boaz Crawshaw appeared and was lineal forty shillings for neglecting to answer to his subpoena. The evidence was to the effect that the plaintiff, Barclay, had a horse belonging to the firm which had been lent.

His Worship was proceeding to give judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, when Mr Stout for the defendant proposed to give up the horse. Judgment for the plaintigs L 25 and costa to be reduced to Is in delivery of the horse.

Pritchard v. Begg.—L3s. Mr Stout for plaintiff ; Mr Steward for the defendant. This was an action to recover the value of a horse alleged to be illegably detained, and a sum for loss through that detention. This horse was bought of the late Mr Rodham. The case as stated by M r Stout was that a Mr McGavin had placed a horse for agistment on Begg’s paddock, which Pritchard bought, and which Begg refused to deliver when it was demanded. The plaintiff was nonsuited.