RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume III, Issue 210, 3 October 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Gisborne, Friday, 2nd Octobbb.

[Before W. K. Nesbitt, Esq., R.M.; and J. A. Wilson, Esq., J.P.] BENSON V. HABDY.

Claim £35 for wages. Adjourned by consent until Friday next. BENSON V. HABDY. Claim for the recovery of a horse, saddle, and bridle and a dog, alleged property of plaintiff. Mr. Wilson for plaintiff ; Mr. Cuff for defendant.

The plaintiff sworn deposed to having bought a horse, saddle, and bridle from Saunders, and a dog from Stevenson, who delivered them to himself, the plaintiff, personally. He exchanged the horse for another. The defendant knew of the exchange. On leaving the defendant’s employ recently he, the plaintiff, was taking tjie horse away, when the defendaut stopped him, and claimed the animal as his property. Cross-examined —I cannot tell what I was arrested for. Mr. Saunders sold me the horse on two months credit. Mr. Hardy paid Saunders for the horse, and Stevenson for the dog. Their value was deducted from ray wages. This was the ease for the plaintiff,

For the Defence —A. F. Hardy sworn, desposed to having bought a dog from Stevenson, and promised to let Benson have it when he could pay for it. (Receipt produced.) He also bought a horse, saddle, and bridle from Saunders for Benson’s use. (Receipt produced.) He paid for these animals, and gave authority for them to be delivered to plaintiff. On plaintiff leaving his employ he endeavoured to take the horse away. Defendant prevented him. The plaintiff became so violent that defendant had to giye him in charge.

William Stevenson deposed to having sold a dog named “ Cricket ” to Benson for £6, who sent him to defendaut for the money, defendant refused to pay him, and he subsequently sold the dog to Mr. Hardy. George Saunders, sworn deposed: Benson wished me to sell him a horse, saddle, bridle and dog. I consented if Mr. Hardy would guarantee the amount. He did so, and the goods were taken away. I consider they were purchased by Mr. Hardy for Benson, until he could pay for them.

The Court held that the goods were bought for the plaintiff by the defendant, and gave damages for plaintiff £lO, to be reduced to Is on delivery of goods to plaintiff. SPBOAT V. MACKEY. Claim £4 15s for certain posts sold. Plaintiff appeared in a drunken state and was ordered to be locked up, case struck out. WI MAHUTKA V. KING.

Mr. Cuff for plaintiff ; Mr. Wilson for defendant. Claim £lO damages for detention of a horse.

Plaintiff sworn, deposed to the branding and identification of the horse as far as his own observations were concerned. Ti Pene and other witnesses also deposed to facts corroborative of plaintiff’s evidence, all of whom Were convinced that the horse claimed was the property of the plaintiff. William King sworn, said that the foal had not been out of his charge for any space except one month, when it came back branded; and that he shut up the animal until such time as he had an opportunity of ascertaining to whom the brand belonged.

C. Anderson corroborated the evidence of previous witness and deposed that the horse had been almost constantly in his possession since it was foaled. Judgment for defendant. HABDY V. BENSON.

An information was laid by A. F. Hardy against William Benson for having used threatening language. Mr. Wilson moved for an adjournment. Mr. Cuff opposed the adjournment, whereupon a rather warm altercation between counsel resulted in Mr. Cuff leaving the Court. The Court decided to adjourn the case until Monday, the sth inst., Benson to enter into his own recognizance for £5O to keep the peace in the meantime, VILLERS V. WATENE. Claim £lB 15s value of a horse the property of plaintiff, the death of which was caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant.

Mr. Wil son for the defendant. Mr. Cuff was entered up as counsel for plaintiff, but refused to appear again in Court. J. Villers sworn, stated that he sent defendant, who was his servant, to town with a dray and the horse in question, and told him to return next day. He returned

the same evening with two horses, but without the dray. The day following he told him the horse was dead.

F. Hill sworn, deposed to having seen the cart and horses in the drain. He lent him a hand to get the horses out of the dray. Defendant ill.treated the horses in a very brutal manner. Witness left before he got them out of the drain. He was excited but not drunk.

Henry Davis sworn, stated that he saw the cart stuck in the drain. The defendant declined accepting any assistance. He was thrashing the horses in a most brutal manner. Witness called the attention of one of the A.C. to the matter. J. Harris deposed to witnessing the affair, and thought that defendant was only doing what was necessary in trying to get the horses out of the drain.

The Bench did not consider negligence was sufficiently established, and gave judgment for defendant.