Resident Magistrates Court, Foxton.

Manawatu Herald, Volume III, Issue III, 6 August 1891, Page 2

Resident Magistrates Court, Foxton.

■■■• — . ». . j, <.".»'■. ■;■.■;) (Before H. W. ; BrabantJgqjßrM/) WimNrtflbiir ,-* stb August. MoMillan, Rhodes Jfc Co., v George Philpott— Claim £5 5s 60or goodg supplied. .. /I J. RrMoMm^t|t|d^h§t^e had received 255, given for £4 Is 6d and coats. ! > i.-L, ; ., E^Osbornev.^B. T£ HekaQuj'Claim £18 gs 9JTor goods suppli|^. The, plaintiff admitted ££ paid, on 'a/<j. "Jufemeriffer'^iO/Ss Ifff and J. E. Nathan^ & Co.:' ¥. u Wir! . :The^efendata« ; 'aokno^leapl l^ debt btit applied : tti 1 bet; alwWed' 1 $ pay 'at'the rate'ofcifil a;^clnthv™' j . Judgment #as fo^laintiff for H M 2s Id, and -'toWttll^ ; tb il be" jiaia it atf the rate of £ 1 a month. ' . AmQ£r:'ißHrr .y.rl 1 ; jißeißicbfcflMp Claim £4 10s. /X ■ /X > ; Mr Bay; appeared fo* jlawtf&Lffo 1 drew attention to the fact that the present plaurf ) jteefc 'Mffil /&! a seto£fin/a previous- case in which the preseiit defendant^ waSjyj^ainti^! except that a claim ;i 0f,,:§4. 4^8,119$ account of a horse w ; aaj[eh,' 1 open for the plaintiff .to, prp^iice a receipt. . Affcer:.,a£guinent the. 8.M., said he must" Hpld^ that every^^ing^jjn^^ej set off must be held io tave been considered at the time it was heard by the magistrate whea the:flaße;Wfls decided. ;. : . , • ,<i<\:'<l Amos Burr, paid >lasti'^ngp4t.lDe> Bidder asked for settlement of the 1.0. U. After conVers'sltion he said '.' my son- wants 1 & borse-and IhaThagl 0,1 cash, and^herelislaf Baka«B"iyori! owe me, let him haye a deoent horse as he wants. one, -for /his -ownThe son clwse ' a • filly,, a^s- p^^the' ;22nd' November, in my presence he took .the -horse.- . I r charged~jß4 10«k being 7s' 6d more than Deßiilder had/ agreed to g^ve.. .It was • npt 'till afterwards that I found that the cheque had been tyrongly. /pajd "faf* Deßidder. Ob may- askiog *or/ a settlement he: has; alw.aya deelft|eAit[ had been settled byith&Cowt. »vi--L i.' By Mr Bay— There was an fag»ee.-5 j ment as to the price, oMhe.'JforfleJj I He agreed to give £8 2s 6d th'eii bajiaace of ihe 1.0..U. , -. and ,*lj[-ini->' taph iv paymeutfor the horse; That.';) agreement was made . some two., months before the ihorse was,- < delivered. On the laßt.oeca3«i6a.iX,! never gave evidence about the

hono. I did not sny o»i the las O3cassion that I had offer red to sel Deßiddor a horse of the value be tween £i and £5. On the l«s ocoassion I did noc say tb<» price o the horse was £5 and tlmt ho hac said he let Deßidder havo it foi fi& 10s. . DeVidder's ton oame uj or twice about a horse. He did aafc if « < I had the horses in hit fapho^ spoke about " Young Doftidfcr never mentioned a word abdm the price. Ho still denied that there was an agreement abonl £2 with the defendant. My son is my partner. The horse was uot part of the partnership. John Burr-said I delivared a bay filly to Deßidder's son. Had nothing' to do with selling the horse. By Mr Ray — I am partner with ttly father in certain things, but not in this horse. I remember young Doßidderand Anderson coming for the horse. He never mentioned ' about showing- a hnr<e fcr £2. It was not the day Anderson came up that the horse was taken away. I did not point out a horse I was willing to take £3 for. I know that 1 had paid £1 to Deßidder for an Assembly dance. By theß.M.— l do not know anything about the agreement, By Mr Ray—l have ah entry of the £1 in a book nt home. - Mr Ray said the defence was that there was an agreement that Burr should supply De Ridder's son with a horae for £2, £1 to be paid in cash th.2 other £1 the debt due by John Burr for Assembly ball. J. F. De Bidder said — I saw plaintiff about a balance on the 1.0. U. and about a horse. This was about a month before delivery of the horse. I told him that his son John owed £1 for a dance a year or two previous. Asked him if it could be settled by his giving my son a horse and my son would give him £1. Burr said he would like to settlo matters that way but his son John was not like that. He said he would see his son. The, next, time he told me that I could send up for the horse, which I eventually got. Afterwards he told me I, was to give him the 1.0. U. and 80s. I said, ". How about John's £1." He said, "You must sumanon John Burr, I will pay no more of his debts." I refused to pay and brought the action tor the 1.0. U. By plaintiff— After you had delivered the horse you then told me I must summons John Burr. By.the R.M.— I offered the horse back but he would not take it. This presence of Mr Kay. The jhorse was not worth 80s, and has since been sold for 50s, broken in. Lionel F. De Bidder said— On the second occasion on going for the horse William Anderson was with m^,jßft^ both Burr and his son. I ptihfted put one and asked the prioe. Jack Burr v said £8, -the one I was going to let you have for £2 had gone astray. I went with him to see if we oould find'it. We did not. The next time he had the horse in. The plaintiff told me the horse was in, and showed it to mejn the stockyard. >#Te said, . "There's the £2 horse." John ; Burr was away this time. Plain tiff- asked me if I had brought the £1, I told him "No, my father #* will settle up when you oome to town." • John Anderson said— l live at f Foston, and work at Makerua. Remember going with young De Bidder to Burr's about a horse. Heard a conversation in the house. Lionel asked Burr if he had the horses in. He said Jack, Burr was after them. Went to see them in the yard. There were 20 to 25 horses. Lionel asked Jack Burr the price of one in the yardi He said, " That one is £8." Lionel said he would rather have one p<t £2. Jack said there was one down at the paddock for £2, but he got astray getting them in. They saddled up and oould not find it. They.jthen went away^ By. plaintiff— The conversation wa& between Lionel and your son. I did not hear you say anything about the price of the horse. John Anderson said— l know the horse in question.: It is a little bit of a hack. Before it was broken in it was worth from 80s to 40s. The R,M. said this was a case where plaintiff sued defendant for value of a horse. The plaintiff and defendant give very different stories. On the whole the defendant's appears the most probable, and there was a distinct statement that the price was £2. He must therefore hold that the horse was sold for £2. He would give judgment for plaintiff for £1 and costs on amount recovered, leaving it for defendant to recover the 20s from John Burr.