DISPUTE ABOUT A HORSE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2070, 3 May 1907, Page 1

DISPUTE ABOUT A HORSE.

Before AI oss l'.s. G. Matthowson and .J. Somervell, .7.P.’5., Michael Koady, stable proprietor, proeeeded against Kiehard Bean, to recover ns for horse feed, 14s for {'raging seven days fat 2s a day, and Cl> 5s for .stabling 25 days at ns a'day. Total claim, £7 4s. Air. Stock a] >pearod for plaintiff and Mr. Sainsbnry for defomlant. Mr. Stock, in opening the case, said that the circumstances were somewhat curious. Defendant brought bis horse to the Kailway Stables, and when he came for it, denied that the horse produced b.v pla inti If was his property. Plaintiff, in his evidence, said that defendant brought his horse to the stables. Two others saw its entry. It remained 10 days. Defendant took the horse away and returned it next day. When he came for it again he was shown the horse, and said that that horse was not his property. Witness pointed out a

stable hack to test him, and defend ant mistook the horses. After defendant inspected witness’ paddocks, hi remarked that things seemed strange like '.then asked for a horse to go tc Tolaga, and witness said, “Take your own.” Defendant, however, had nn money and witness refused delivery. By the Court: Defendant was in a drunken condition when he came for his horse. By Mr. Sainsbury: The horse had not been worked. Could not swear that the horse was not hired out. It was ridden out to paddocks several times. By Mr. Stock: The horse was in the st-ablo for the 25 days’ stabling claimed for . John Chambers, William Potter, and W. Hawker, employed by plaintiff, corroborated the evidence of last witness. Constable Irwin described Unhorse, which he saw in the stables. He thought defendant had had some drink that day, hut knew what' lie was doing. Mr. Sainsbury, for the defence, stated defendant was shown the wrong horse before he left for Tolaga. He submitted that it looked like nn attempt to load defendant with expense: 19s was due, but the rest of the claim was disputed. Defendant stated that he brought fiiis horse to the stables and took it away for the Park races and returned it the next day. When lie again called for it, the wrong horse was pointed out. Had had no liquor (then. Ho wont away and when ho returned Keady addressed him in a jocular manner, and witness would not take the horse indicated. Later when lie met Keadv, the latter persisted in his version. He was positive of his identification of the horse. -By Mr. Stock: Did not tell Constable Irwin that the horse was 15 or 10 hands high. Was not exactly certain then whether the horse had a white hind leg. Constable Irwin may

have made a mistake about the brand The other horse was hut slightly similar and it had a star 011 its forehead. The witnesses were wrong in stating that the other horse belonged to witness. Nothing was said about money. William Janies WOOll, a jocfkey, of Hastings, deposed that he rode defendant’s horse from Hastings to Wairoa. It was branded M with n bar on the off shoulder, and there wore a few white hairs 011 a hind foot. Keady asked witness to see the horse, and he at once saw that it did not belong to defendant. It had a big scar on the chest. Keady said some mistake must have occurred. The Bench said that the evidence was conflicting, although the balance was in plaintiff’s favor. 011 the other hand Mr. Lean was experienced with horses and knew what he was do-

ing. Plaintiff would he non-suited. Mr. Stock objected, holding that as the evidence was in plaintiff's favor, he could not be non-suited. It was an extraordinary position. The Bench was divided, and thought that it should be taken before the Magistrate. Mr. Sainsbury stated „ that after hearing the case, this course could not be adopted. Mr. Stock said that the stabling was sued for. Judgment for the full amount would not decide the ownership of the horse. Mr. Sainsbury said that proceed-

ings to recover the horse would he taken, and suggested that defendant he allowed to take proceedings, and then let plaintiff enter a counter claim for stabling and grazing. Tho Bench decided, without prejudice to other proceedings, to give judgment for £1 6s for grazing, and costs £1 6s.