RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume V, Issue 274, 5 June 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thubsday, JUNK 4. (Before 11. A. Stratford, Esq., TL.M.) Peter Law v. Joseph Packman. —Debt, £l7 os. Mr. Eowlatt appeared for plaintiff, Mr. W- L. Bailey for defendant. The plaintiff's case was as follows : On the 12th January, 1874, the defendant hired his dray, stating that it was for the road party near Malloch's.'and that it was not returned till the 29th May. That he had made no arrangement as to the charge for hire at that time; but did so when the dray was returned at the rate of 3s. a day for the whole period during "which the dray had been away. He said that he valued it at £lO or £l2. That he had agreed to send for shafts to repair defendant's dray. Plaintiff's witness, David M essenf, considered 2s. 6d. a day a fair charge for the use of a dray, and 10s. for i a horse and dray: "That if the dray was let for four or six months, ami returned in good repair, he thought a shilling a day sufficient. Had "riot had ni uc.h experie nee ! in these matters.—For the defence, Joseph Packman stated "that the dray had i been lent to him l»y the plaintiff in January last, without any terms being named by either. That, .when he borrowed it, I plaintiff had sent to Dunedin for shafts to repair defendant's own dray, and that he | had borrowed plaintiff's dray until the ! latter had repaired his (the defendant's). i Plaintiff lent it to him, and he sent it | down to Mr. Draper on the r~ad works. It was not until the 28tn May plaintiff demanded the £l7"ss. The shafts came | up on.the'24th January for his own dray. For the u.se of plaintiff's drav and defendants own horse he (defendant) received, } 30s. a-week for three weeks from Mr. Draper, and from that time until the 29th j *May it had been left unused at Malloeh's I hotel.—John Bradley, sworn, stated that he was present when plaintiff and defendant agreed about the loan of pini miff's dray to defendant, and hpard defendant saj something about keeping it until some' shafts arrived from Dunedin. Plaintiff said lie could not well spare it, and defendant replied that he would let him have the use of one whenever he Iwanted it. This appeared to satisfy the plaintiff! Under cross-examination this witness said he had heard defendant ask for the loan of the dray, and plaintiff consented.—John , Draper, sworn, stated he was road inspector. Had on one occasion proposed to purchase plaintiff's dray, but would not give the price asked, £B. Considers that 10s. a-week is a fair price for dray hire. The Magistrate, in summing up, said that this may be considered a case of misplaced confidence in the friendship of plaintiff towards defendant, as it appears that defendant was under the impression that he could keep plaintiff's dravas lonw as he pleased for nothing. By Bradley's evidence it may be concluded that su<-h an arrangement did exist, to terminate as soon as plaintiff had repaired defendant's dray with-new shafts, which he did by the 24th January last, and that after that date plaintiff would he entitled to make a reasonable charge for the use of his dray until it was returned. The witness Messcnt considered that for a long period-one shilling a day was sufficient for the hire a dray, if it was returned in pood repair and Draper, who is considered an expert in such matters, thinks 10j: a a proper charge for a good dray,,if : usea-all the time. It appears by t!ie : evfc r * dence that the dray had not been used since the end of January ; and that it was only through the neglect and carelessness of the defendant that the dmy had not been returned to its owner in January last. The plaintiff had a perfect to expeet that his dray should have been returned to him as soon as the shafts arrived for defendant's dray, and he had aUo a claim against the defendant for the non-delivery of the dray for 125 days, for which he will be allowed at the rale of Is! a day, Judgment for £6 55.; costs, 195.,. two witnesses, 10s.; professional fee, £1 Is.