Local Intelligence.

Lyttelton Times, Volume IX, Issue 554, 24 February 1858, Page 5

Local Intelligence.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S EXTENSION COURT. Christchurch, February 19 and 20,-1858. The adjourned sitting of this Court in its extended jurisdiction took place in Christchurch on Friday and Saturday last. There were seven cases on the list, besides two that: stood over from the sitting in Lyttelton. In the first of these, the case of Barrell. v. Mills, the Court gave judgment for the plaintiff for the sum of £51 3s. and the sum of £7 2s. 2d. cogts. In the other adjourned case, Wilson v. Hughes, upon proof of debt by the plaintiff, judgment was given in his favour for the sum of £51 7s. 6d., and £6 115..10 d. costs. r The cases upon ..the' regular list of the day were then disposed of:— ' : , RUI.K V. GOSLING. ' . This case (which was tried by a jury) was instituted for recovery of damages sustained by reason of the defendant's detaining the plaintiffs mare. The facts as shown by the plaintiff's evidence were as follows:—On a Friday about three or four weeks ago plaintiff was requested by defendant to examine professionally his mare. He did so. Found she was spavined, and in-escribed the necessary treatment.' The defendant expressed a desire to exchange or sell the mare, upon which plaintiff requested him to go over with him to his (plaintiff's) paddock to look at a mare which he was willing to give in exchange for defendant's. They accordingly went over, and upon seeing the mare defendant said she looked like one that formerly belonged to a Mr. Griffiths. Plaintiff replied that he had never seen the mare before, that week, that he had just bought her with others from a Mr. Hewitt from Nelson. Defendant requested that his son mighty allowed to ride the mare, stating, that if his ssn liked her he would probably make the exchange, to which plaintiff agreed; and it "was settled that the boy was to try the mare at 4_ o'clock .that day. Plaintiff Avas in the act of riding the mare when the boy came down, and the latter rode her several times round the paddock and from thence to his father's shop, . accompanied. by .plaintiff.. In. answer to defen-. dant's, enquiries the boy expressed his' approval .of .the animal's behaviour, and also his convic- . tion that she was the mare defendant had taken '' her to be! ' Plaintiff then proposed to defendant to make the exchange, and a conversation ensiled /relative-''to the consideration to be given, which resulted in an agreement for the exchange; plaintiff paying for a pair of fore shoes for his mare: upon which plaintiff took away the mare which he had received from the defendant, and so the matter for the time ended. On the Monday night following, defendant's son applied to plaintiff to rescind the agreement and return defendant's mare, stating as a reason that his mother had become dissatisfied, with „ the mare plaintiff had given. defendant on ac- . countof its vice, and offering plaintiff a sovereign as a consideration for the rcscision. To these terms plaintiff declined to.accede, alleging that •he had. partly' sold the mare. Next day defendant's son came to plaintiff's paddock and attemp-

ted to take plaintiff's mare away, but was prevented in doing, so by plaintiff's brother. The lad went away and soon came back with defendant, who took the mare from the tether and gave her in charge to his son, alleging in justification of the act that, he did so by plaintiff's authority, upon which plaintiff's brother went away and told plaintiff what had transpired, who immediately went to defendant and demanded the restoration of the mare, which was refused; the defendant alleging that the exchange had been made on condition "that it was not Griffiths' mare," which plaintiff denied. Plaintiff stated the value of the mare which was taken away to be £50, and alleged that he had sustained damage to the amount of £10 by j the detention, because he had to use another I mare which had become lame. In cross-examination, plaintiff stated that he never told defendant that the mare was not Griffiths'. He also stated that in the afternoon of the day on which the mare was taken from his paddock, defendant's son brought to his house the mare which plaintiff had given defendant, and which plaintiff refused to accept. To a juror; Plaintiff stated that there was no condition stated as to the mare not being Griffiths'. • The defendants case differed from the plaintiff's in many respects. It contained allegations that plaintiff had from the first to the last assured defendant positively that the mare given by plaintiff to defendant was not that which had belonged to Mr. Griffiths, that neither defendant nor his son were at the time of the exchange actually aware that it was Griffiths' mare, though they strongly suspected it, and that it was an expre?s condition of the exchange that the. animal was not " Griffiths' mare," and if she proved to be so the contract was to be at an end. It also appeared from defendant's case that from sundry strong symptoms exhibited by the mare of a most vicious disposition, as well as from the assurance of Mr. Griffiths himself, defendant gradually became convinced that the animal was really "Griffiths' mare," and that he had been overreached by the plaintiff, whereupon he sent to the plaintiff requesting he would send defendant his own mare; which being refused, he went to plaintiff's paddock and took away the mare as already mentioned. To a juror: Defendant stated that the condition was emphatically expressed before the exchange took place. The defendant's son corroborated many of his father's statements. In his cross-examination he admitted having by defendant's direction offered plaintiff £1 to rescind the contract. Some of defendant's statements were also corroborated by a third witness; and the habitual vice of the mare called "Griffiths' mare" and also the indentity of the animal were deposed to by a fourth. The Resident Magistrate summed up'the evidence, and after a few minutes conference in their room the jury gave in their verdict for plaintiff for £50 damage. Judgment was given accordingly for that amount and £10 17s. 6d. costs. We learn that two of the jurors summoned in this case absented themselves without any explanation, and were fined for the offence in a mitigated penalty of 40s. each; the Resident. Magistrate at the same time intimating that for a repetition of the offence the full penalty of £10 would be inflicted. GUINNESS V. HARBISON. Settled out of Court. BLACK V. COUSINS. . Action for £28 Is. 7d., for goods sold and delivered. Judgment entered for plaintiff by consent, for full amount and £4 Bs, 2d. costs. WILKINSON V. ASHBY. 7 Action for £40 and interest on a dishonoured acceptance. Judgment by consent for plaintiff for full amount "with 13s. 3d. interest and £4 7s. 6d. costs. , BROWN V. SAME. Action for £81 9s. 2d„ balance of account for goods sold and delivered.. Defendant appeared and consented to judgment for £34 2s. 2d. and £3 16s. 6d. costs, which was accordingly entered. LAYMAN V. SMITH. Action brought for £37 10s., for wages, money lent, ,and' amount of promissory note and interest. Judgment entered by consent for amount claimed, with 9s. 6d. interest and £4 Is. costs. KENNAWAY V. BRIMICOMBE. . This action was brought by the. Messrs. Kennaway to recover £27 for. balance of account stated and cash paid, with interest. One of the plaintiffs proved the balancing of the account and defendant's handwriting to a promissory note for payment of the amount. Defendant pleaded want of consideration for signing the note. Judgment for plaintiffs for amount claimed and £4 12s. 6d. costs. Plaintiffs waived their claim for interest.