A RACING BRIDLE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4382, 24 February 1922, Page 2

A RACING BRIDLE.

OWNERSHIP DISPUTED. . An action to recover a racing bridle, valued at £2, with £5 damages for its retention, was brought by Mary Neil, : for her son, Norman Janies. Neil, against Jakob .Bertelsen. The case was heard before Mr Salmon, S.M., at the court on Wednesday last. L. Hanna appeared for the plaintiff and Messrs Clendon and Montague for the defendant. Mary Neil gave evidence of the purchase of the bridle, which she described as being doublenreined and all Sewn. The bridle was left op the | stop-bank last May by her som A little while afterwards they saw it oh one of Bertelsen’s horses and knew it directly as their bridle. The next she saw the bridle was at the police station. After the police case against Bertelsen for the'ft of the-bridle she asked Bertelsen for dr, but he refused. Cross-examined by Mr Clendon the plaintiff said that there was no private mark ofi the bridle. Three racing bridges were then produced and withess was asked to pick her bridle out from amongst the three. This task proved too much for . the witness, who said that, she could not swear to any of the three being the one, although she thotfght that the exhibit B was very much like the. one. She could not swear to it. Tn answer to a question about the Conversation with Bertelsen, witness said that Bertelsen told her that if she had gone to him in a proper manner he might h,ave handed the bridle to her. Norman James Neil, a boy of 13 years, said the bridle was 1 lost on the night before the shooting season. He next saw it on Bertelsen’s .hbrse. He identified one of the bridles produced and marked "B” as being his. He had not seen any bridle it. He was quite sure of the bridle. John Neil, a clerk employed by the Northern Steamship Co., Ltd.,, gave ' evidence of leaving the bridle on the stop-bank. He had seen Bertelsen’s boys riding on the stopqbaiik. He identified thei forehead band on exhibit “B” He did not know pf any other bridlp like theirs in the town. Ernest Neil, a grocer’s assistant, said he knew the bridle. He saw. it in the court in December, and recognised it as his brpther’s He had never seen Bertelsen’s horses with a good bridle. He had used tjhe bridle several times, but could not recognise any of the bridles produce! as being their bridle. He they had been changed about. Alfred Fielder, sadlen, said that there were lots of bridles; in the district like the one in question. This Closed the plaintiff’s case. . ' Mr Clendon submitted that tjiere . was no satisfactory, evidence of identification. They had produced three bridles, but none off. the witnesses seemed to be very certain. He submitted that no prima facie Case had been made out. . . - . The Magistrate said that he con-, sidered it had, and called on the de-< fendants for their defence. ! Jakob Bertelsen. sworp, said that he owned a bridle and had bought it from Stansfield; auctioneer, long before March of last year. The bridle was kept inside the office, door. A . native called Dick Rakana had used it. Exhibit “B” was the bridle. He. claimed it as his.. Mrs Neil asked for , the bridle, but he said he was not going to give it up. He had a lengthy talk with Mrs Neil. He had used the bridle purchased from Stansfield Ipng before May last year- His harness and horses were in good order, and he had the bits silvered to lhaye ths bridles alike. He knew nothing’about Mrs Neil’s bridle. He had neveh goS a bridle from Ngawiki within the last 12 months. The bits used were quite

common. . ■ Dick Rakana, of Komata, gave evidence of borrowing a bridle, from Bertelsen in December, 1920, whep. he was working at the brewery, and which he said was like one pf thpse , produced. Epiha Ngawiki, assistant clerk at the. brewery, sworn, said that he had seen a bridle hanging up in Bertelsen's office for aboutl 12 months. He joined-the brewery this montii last year, and was working full time. Mr Hanna: Are you sure about this ? Witness: Ypsj positive. I was working for Bertelsen last February. Mr Hanna: Now, I want you to think agj(in, because I fancy itj Was in February that I went tp Tahuna to see ypu with reference to some books ofi Mr Moresby’s. ; Witness: I am quite positive f that I was with Mr Bertelsen at the brewery. Mr Hanna: Full time ?' Witness: Yes, full time. I started continuous work about February. This concludued the case. The Magistrate said that this bridle had been toe subject of litigation be-, fore, and it had been brought now hi the proper way, namely, a civil action. He was satisfied that the bridle exhibit “B” was the bridle. He considered the boy a remarkably bright and smart lad to recognise his bridle amongst the others. This proof alone was sufficient to establish the ownership of the bridle. The only point was as to" the value. The plaintiff had said 255. He gave judgment for 25s l or the return of the bridle, damages £5 for the retention, court costs £2 6s', solicitors’ costs £1 6s, witnesses expenses £1 14s 6d. Mr Hanna asked for the return of the bridle, but the Magistrate said he had given the alternative. Mr Hanna: But! my client wishes tp have the bridle. Mr Clendon: Oh, no you don’t! My client’s going to stick, to the bridle.