DISTRICT COURT.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume II, Issue 74, 27 November 1862, Page 6 (Supplement)

DISTRICT COURT.

Wednesday, November 19. (Before J. Curling Dsq., District Judge). Maltbg 4- another v. Luff'. This was a case of appeal, Mr. Carlyon, for the appellant, made application under the*lo3 rd clause of the District Courts Act, 1858, for the Judge to settle the case between them, as the solicitor for the former plaintiff, Mr. Wilson, and himself could not agree to the terms in which the case should be stated for the consideration of the Judge of the Supreme Court. Stuart .)• another v. A. Allan. This case was adjourned from last sittings, owing to the decease ol defendant. Judgment for £93 10s. 10d.. to take effect against the administrator, B. Taylor, Esq. Doit'sh v. Danvers. An action of trover, in which plaintiff sought to recover £2G, the value of a horse entrusted to defendant, for sale. Mr. Carlyon appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wilson for the defendant. From the evidence, it appeared that in April last, plaintiff gave a horse, for which he had paid £-6, to defendant to sell by Auction, and that defendant, not being able to sell the horse just at that time, sent it to Havelock, as was his custom, to run with other horses under his charge. The horse in question was, along with others, put in a paddock for the night, and let loose in the daytime to graze, by the man employed by defendant to look after them. About three months since the horse wrs missed, and had not since been heard of, although search had been made, and it had been advertized. The plaintiff wanted the horse back again to sell him, but defendant did not produce, nor give ana - satisfactory account of him, and he therefore brought this action. Mr. Carlyon contended that an Auctioneer was only relieved from liability in case of lire, and not then, if told by the owner to insure. That defendant had failed to account for the horse, which he received for sale, and it was only just that plaintiff should get the horse back or its value. To be free from liability, defendant should have got an agreement signed relieving him from responsibility. AJ- 1 ’- M ilson held that defendant had taken every reasonable care of the horse, and had treated him like his own and others intrusted to his care. Hud he put the horse out to livery, which was the only way to have complete control over it, it would have cost plaintiff more than the animal was worth. The plaintiff had failed to'show negligence in this case, which was necessary in an action of this kind. Mr. V\ ilson instanced that it a livery stable keeper at home were sued for a horse which had met with accident or death whilst in his eai’e, negligence must be proved as the cause before recovery could be made. Every care reasonably to be expected had been taken of this horse, and he claimed a verdict in favor of his client. Judgment deferred till the following dav. Tm.-jtsDAY, November 20. Doiish v. Danvers. His honor, in giving judgment, observed that in his opinion, more regard must bo had to the evidence as a whole, than to a point of abstract law, in a ease of this nature. He did not think there had been any proof of negligence against defendant, and ho should give judgment for defendant, with costs, £1 25."