£5OO DAMAGES

Hokitika Guardian, 30 September 1932, Page 5

£SOO DAMAGES

WRONG HORSE SHOT FOR LOVING CUP’S OWNER (Per Press Copyright.) AUCKLAND.,. 'September 29. Th© owners of tab' racehorse Loving |Cup, which was shbt in mistake for another horse at Ellerslie indfune of last year, have been awarded ''£soo damages Iby Mr Justice Herdmanjlagabist the man who is held responsible for the mistake. The action was taken in the Supreme Court by the owners of Loving Cup, Mervyn Wells.'and Jas. Taylpr, Cambridge, farmers, against 'Norman Austin, a boiling down works proprietor, of Te Papa, to whom the task of shooting the horse was entrusted. The claim was for £SOO damages. “Probably £SOO was about the value of the horse oh the day that he was destroyed,” stated His Honour after reviewing the evidence, '"and for that sum 1 shall give judgment with costs as per scale, witnesses’ expenses aijd disbursements to be settled by the Registrar.' I allow for one extra day and fix counsel’s fee at £ls lEs." ’

His Honour said it had been suggested that when the defendant’s servant attended at Hannon’s stables to carry out the destruction of Glen Mare®, the. •» other animal, Loving Cup, in the same ] paddock, was so maimed and disabled that there was justification for believing that he was the horse to be killed. His Honour could not place that interpretation on the evidence. He defin- *■ it-ely came to the conclusion that Glen Maree was badly ripped. If Mrs Austin’s evidence was to be accepted, then she wag content to act upon information that was incredibly meagre,” con- ' A tinued His Honour. “The boy Austin, who was sent by his father. to perform the act of destruction, gave evidence which . was tantamount to', a confession of inexcusable carelessness. I have no 'hesitation in' saying that when he wag sent by his father to shoot the horse belonging to plaintiffs, it'was his business to make sure that h e was selecting the right horse, but that was not done. 4 The truth of the matter is that h© took ho painsf fio identify the animal that was fo be destroyed. The defendant gave evidence which did not help' his case, and showed that he had little sense oj responsibility,” added His Honour. “He said he thought that there would be only one horse there, but had h 6 gone -himself, and had (here beenmore than one lame horse, he would have shot the worst one, as he put it. It was ' impossible, after giving the evidence care- . fu,l consideration Jo acquit the dofendant of negligence,' for assuming that Loving Cup was showing signs of lameness, it Was still defendant’s duty to make sttre that he was about to destroy tho right horse,”