Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume XIV, Issue 130, 22 April 1893, Page 3

Feilding R.M. Court

(Before Mr. Brabant, R.M.} The following business was transacted after we went to press on Thursday last. William Hunter v. W. Mitchell ; claim £10 4s lOd, for the value of a cow taken from the plaintiffs paddock in a mistake. Mr Trior for the plaintiff, and Mr Suidilands for the defendant. William Hunter deposed that he missed the co\y from bis paddock on the 2nd December last and heard it had been removed, and charged the defendant with : taking the cow in a mistake. | Defendant said ; If that was so, he j would give plaintiff another one for it. This witness 1 evidence in chief was very voluminous, the cross-examination eliciting the fact that it was possible for the cow to get ont of. the paddock and become mixed up in a passing mob. jj. V. Pickering deposed that he valued the cow nt £6. Witness had had a conversation with Mitchell about the cow, and lie had agreed to give Hunter a fresh oue in place of the lost animal. Cross-examined ; Animals passing along the road could get through Hunter's hedge. Witness denied telling Mitchell outside the Court House to-day, that he was not quite sure as to Mitchell's exact expression respecting his giving Hunter another cow. George Pickering deposed to the Jeonversation which took place between the last witness and Mitchell, and his evidence corroborated that given by his brother. William Lowe and Joseph Bellve also gave evidence for the plaintiff. At this stage Mr Sandilands quoted 11 Addition on Torts," and urged that the land of the plaintiff being unfenced, plaintiff should be nonsuited. Mr Prior urged that his learned friend was wrong in setting np such a contention, as the evidence adduced proved that the defendant was willing to compromise the matter, and either pay for the cow or give Hunter another one in its place. Mr Sandilands submitted that there was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff which completely cut the ground from under his feet. His Worship said the evidence for the plaintift was exceedingly weak. William Mitchell deposed that on the 2nd December last he was driving a mob of 69 cattle along the Awahuri road, when two cows got away from the mob into Hunter's paddock. When witness drove them out again he only noticed the two cows come through, nor did he see any other animals in the field. Witness saw two stray cows further along the road, which he "cut out" of his mob when they got mixed up in it. Witness never admitted his promise to the plaintiff, to give him another animal. William Mitchell, junr., gave evidence which bore ont the statement of the defendant to the effect that they had no cows in their mob which did not belong to them. Thomas Foster deposed that he saw a stray cow in West street on the 2nd of December. From enquiries he made he was given to understand that the animal belonged to Mr Hunter. Mr Sandilands at this stage closed the case for the defence, as he argued that the evidence submitted completely upset the case for the plaintiff. Mr Prior submitted that his version of the matter as borne out by the evidence of his witnesses was the more reliable. His Worship said it has not been proved that defendant drovo the cow out of Huuter'a place, and Mitchell and his nephew deny having done so. Tho witiiessefl for the plaintiff were not certain about the cow boiug driven out. If it were taken out, it cannot be urgod that it w«a done purposely, as in that case tho animal would bo stolen, and this was never urged in the evidence for the plaintiff. Again the evidence of the Pickerings is not altogether conclusive, and corroborative, as even if tbe words attributed to the defendant were uttered it was quite possible that ho only raeane to lend the cow for a time, and certaiulj defendant was not responsible for the loss of the animal. Judgmeut would bo for defendant, with 12s costs of court, 34s expenses of witnesses, and 21s solicitor's fee. In the cast of Pnchard v Maitland in which judgment was giyen for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, Mr Sandilands applied to the Court to grant an order for immediate execution. His Worship after hearing Mr Sandilaads, made the order as prated for. This concluded the business, and the Court then adjourned.