BUYING A HORSE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1653, 20 January 1906, Page 3

BUYING A HORSE.

DISPUTE AS TO GUARANTEE,

[ A case of considerable interest to buyers and sellers of horses and other stock was dooidod by Mr Barton, 8 M.,.at the Magistrate’s Court yestorday. Goorgo Dunne, farmer, of Matawhero (Mr Slock) sued Gaino Carrington, horse doalor (Mr Blair), for £l7 19s 6d, alleging that a cortain horso which he bought at auotion for £3l from dofondant was guaranteed by him as sound. A large number of witnesses wero examined, the defenoo being that no guarantee was givon, while for the plain- j till it was olaimod that a guaranteo bad been given by the auctioneer upon the authority of the owner, This was denied | by Mr Carrington, but Mr Wyllio’s evidence wps oonelusive. He said the horso was put up for sale, and Mr Carrington was present. Thoro wore only three bids, and the sale dragged. Just before witness knookod the horse dowD, ho thought the prioe was low, and asked Mr Carrington if the horse was sound other than the blemish on the hook. Defendant replied yes; iho blemish on tbo hook was ins berited from its mother, and would not affeot him in any way. Witnoss then remarked that all present could hoar what Mr Carrington had said ; the horse was [ perfcolly sound. The next bid was £3l, at whioh prioe it was sold to plaintiff As i the reserve was £4O, witness obtained de- t fondant’s consent to sell at £Bl. From i what ho saw of the horse, independent of t tbo blemish on the hook, witness did not think it was a sound horse. Witness sold the ho;:ao again on December 18 for £l6, and the net sum plaintiff oblainod was £ls 5s 6d.

I After heating tho evidenoe and adI dresses of counsel, His Worship said there were two questions to be decided in the case. First as to whether the horse in I question was sold with a guarantee as to I soundness, and the evidenoe on this point was somewhat contradictory. In his I opinion of the whole oiroumstanoes a I guarantee was given, and the auctioneer I was very deoided upon this, and was supI port d by several other witnesses. The evidence for the defence was that the wit' nesses did not hrar the guarantee given. | Upon the second question, tfce soundness of the horse at the tune of the sale, Mr Luttrell was verydear, and his was tho only evidenoe of value called. Judgment would, therefore, be for plaintiff for £lO £js and costs. The latter amounted to £9 4s, ico'udiDg £5 2s for witnesses’ expenses.