JUDGMENT IN RYAN V. CROWEL'S CASE.

Lyell Times and Central Buller Gazette, Volume VI, Issue 280, 3 July 1886, Page 2

JUDGMENT IN RYAN V. CROWEL'S CASE.

The above case was heard at Lyell on June 9th, and judgment reserved, to be delivered in Westport and entered up next Court day at Lyell. Through the courtesy of Frank Bird, Esq., R.M., we are enabled to publish the judgment iu this issue, as follows :

" This is an action to recover possession of a certain waggon and horses, and also damages for the wrongful detention of same. It appears that on or about the Ist November last the defendant entered into an agreement with plaintiff for the purchase of a team of horses, harness, and waggon, on certain conditions, viz : that the price should be £l3O, to be paid by the freight on goods at £4 per ton. plaintiff engaging to pay defendant half freight on delivery, the remainder to be

held in payment for the team. The team was handed' over to defendant, and certain goods were delivered to plaintiff up to January Ist, the freight on which according to plaintiff's statement amounted to .£SO ss, and according to defendant's to i'6l ss. This discrepancy was not thoroughly explained or gone into, and therefore I cannot say who is right in that particular. It is alleged by plaintiff that on January Ist defendant told him he would have nothing more to do with the team, as he could not make it pay, and that plaintiff intended him to take the waggon down the road, and put the horses in Christies paddock until he sent for them, which was done. This evidence was strongly corroborated by Messrs Carne and Larsen, and also by the evidence of defendant, as he admits saying on one occasion " he would have to give the team up unless he got another horse." Plaintiff also states, and J consider proves, that he paid defendant over 4:40 on the freight of goods, and therefore according to his statement only i'lo had been paid towards the purchase money, or for the use of the team for two months. The evidence no doubt is conflicting, and defendant swears that the evidence of plaintifl, Carne, and Larsen is all false, and that he had no intention of giving up possession ; he also states he told Carne lie would give up the team or sell it, but on the condition that the account for repairs was paid and he receive £3O for himself, what for he neglected to say, and I cannot imagine, unless it was to make up for losses incurred through en tering into an unpayable contract. I think the plaintiff had the right to the immediate possession of the goods, and a demand was made by plaintiff's solicitor for the delivery on January 28tli. I consider there was no bailment nor yet ab solute sale, only an executory agreement, which was not fulfilled, and that a redelivery was made on January Ist, and therefore any lien on the property (if any existed) was gone or lost by such delivery. By a letter dated May Ist, from defendant to plaintiff, it appears all defendant wanted was the payment of accounts for repairs to waggon, and if he was entitled to receive same he had his remedy by action against the plaintiff. " After carefully reviewing all the evidence, which is as I have already stated very conflicting, and taking into consideration all the legal aspects of the transaction, I have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has a right to recover, aud therefore the judgment will be for iGO, to be reduced to <£lo on the delivery of the waggon and harness by defendant to plaintiff. A larger amount would be allowed as damages if it had been clearly proved that plaintiff's statement as to freight was correct, as I consider that was a uiattei to be considered in the judgment. Costs of Court, 5s ; two witnesses, £3 ; Counsel's fee, .£3 35."