ABOUT A HORSE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 1081, 29 March 1913, Page 3

ABOUT A HORSE.

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. Al the Magistral yes* tpnlay, before J. - ynton Esq., S.M., Jamer ■ ; ' he- : m- ■x'- 7 •« m.b .'i.neth A ode ■ u«on»ges for injury alleged 10 be caused to his (Aitcheson’s) horse by the defendant’s negligence. The plaintiff stated that he had obtained a horse from Andersor in an exchange. O’, the 10-. b, January Anderson asked him for the horse to go to Palmerston N., and arranged iu return to help plaintiff cut down some trees. Plaintiff agreed to this, and on 12th January took the horse. The following day he brought it back, and called plaintiff out to see it. He found the horse was then “a walking butcher’s shop.” He had never seen a horse in such a condition. Its nose was chopped about, its head cut open, its knees cut, the bridge of its nose injured, and gravel rash on the shoulder. He asked defendant how it happened, and he said he had ridden into some loose stones, and when about to turn off them the horse fell and received the injuries. Plaintiff considered the horse must have been carelessly ridden to fall on its head. Had never been able to ride the horse since. It v* as of no value now. He could not sell a horse with its knees cut. ■The horse was valued at in the exchange he made when getting it, and he considered that the true value. Cross-examined : He was not present when the injury happened. He inferred the damage was caused by carelessness, from the nature of the injuries, and from what the defendant told him. Had never said to the defendant that it was a mere accident. The horse was not defective before the damage. Defendant was helping him to cut down some trees before he asked for the horse. No particular number was arranged. The horse was now of no use at all, and he would have a job to give it away.

Bernard Gapper Gower said he knew the horse. Befor,e the injury it was a good horse. He saw the horse the day it was brought back. Witness had had experience of horses ever since childhood, but bad never before seen one so badly injured. He considered the hcrse was of no value whatever since the injury. He would not take it as a gift’ It was not worth its keep. From the nature of the injuries the horse must have been carelessly ridden. Cross-examined ; Witness could not say that the injury was the result of an accident. He should say it was the result of carelessness. Could not say what the cause of the injury was, but only knew what the condition of the horse was when be saw it. Kenneth Easton said he. knew the horse. He was there when Anderson brought it back from Palmerston. He saw the injuries. Had never before seen a horse in such a state. Had had expeiieuce of horses all his life, Anderson told him the horse had fallen on some loose stones at Oroua Bridge. Witness considered the injury must have resulted from the rider not holding the reins tight enough. To bring the horse in from Oroua Bridge after the injuries, witness considered would make the horse worse.

' Cross-examined : Witness could not say that the damage was the result of an accident. Considered the horse had fallen in consequence of the way it was ridden. It the reins had been held properly it would not have fallen on its head.

The defendant, Kenneth Anderson, giving evidence on his own behalf, stated he had borrowed the horse from the plaintiff, telling him he wanted it to go to Palmerston with. The assistance in cutting the trees had nothing whatever to do with the horse. He bad been helping Aitcheson with the trees previously, and had not claimed anything for the work. When he got to Palmerston N. with the horse, he gave it a feed and put it in a paddock to rest. Before leaving be gave it another feed. Started from Palmerston iu the evening. At Oroua Bridge he rode into some loose stones in the dark, and was just about to turn the horse off them when it fell. He struck a match to see what injuries were done, and a man he met got some oil and put on the wounds, .He then came on to Foxton at a walking, pace, at times riding, and at other times leading the horse. When Aitcheson saw the horse in the morning he was thunderstruck. The horse was an inferior one when he exchanged it to Aitcheson, and was not worth Cross-examined r Could not account for the accident happeniug. Thought the horse had probably trodden on a loose stone. Did not examine the road to see what the cause of the accident was. Had known the horse well before, and had often ridden it. Had not met with any other accident anywhere on the‘journey. Had kept the reins tight all the time. The reason of the horse falling on its bead was that it was arching its neck.

For the defendant, William said he knew the horse in question, but could not express any opinion as to its value. Did not know anything about the injury. Had seen the hoise since, but could not say what the effect of the damage was. Denis Purcell, on behalf of the defendant, said he knew the horse. Had known it before Aitchison got it. _ It was a very inferior horse —it brushed and had a stiff shoulder, and a bad walk. Did not think the injury to the horse would permanently disable it.

When a horse fell and got its Iknces cut, it was uot always mined. A horse in that condition might ‘e 1 ’ 'v>ll et 3"i"etimes V. - j-i- a boise >' ju^ed th'it v.av vvuu o . .3 goed ** c?v x m *. • • ■-■utiiis he»’?d. ■ r, s.s-examiij«. ' ■ • norse la knees scan -3 that might a:u-.c; price in the sale yard. Generally before a hone was bought, a man would have it on trial for a time. A borse that 3. ad been down r : 1 mt its knees might be good nc:i kb -.ir working. His Worsb’p su’d the value ot the horse must be taken as that at which the parties had dealt lor it, The horse had deteriorated in value through the injury. No doubt scars on a horse would deteriorate it to a horse dealer, aud he had to take into consideration that the plaintiff had lost the use of the horse for some time, but he could not say the horse was of uo value now. It was of some value. He considered £$ damages should be awarded, with witnesses’ expenses £ x, and plaintiff’s costs. Messrs Gower and K. Easton, plaintiff’s witnesses, said they did not desire to claim expenses, and judgment was accordingly entered for the plaintiff for £\ damages together with 14s court costs, and £1 6s, solicitor’s fee.