R.M. COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 242, 23 September 1884, Page 2

R.M. COURT, GISBORNE.

(Before J. Booth, Esq., R.M.) THIS DAY. Theltrail it' Co. v. J. Bradley. Claim for meat sold. No appearance of defendant. Judgment by default with costs Us. 7? Curtis (£' Co. v. B. Turnbull. Claim £6 6s. on a judgment summons. The case was adjourned for one month. Anaru Ratatujm v. Tame Hone. Mr. McDougall for the plaintiff, and Mr. Brassey for the defendant. Mr. McDougall explained that this was an action brought by one native against another under the 58th section of the Resident Magistrate’s Act, which made provision that the suit should be brought to recover specific goods and the plaintiff should claim a return of such goods or their value, and damage for their detention. The plaintiff therefore now sought to recover from the defendant certain specific goods viz., a black horse with a certain brand, or £lB being the value of lhe said horse, and £2 damage for detention of the animal.

The plaintiff deposed that he made an agreement with the defendant about 5 years ago in which he asked defendant to let him have the use of his horse. There was no arrangement as to what he (plaintiff) was to do with the foal, but it was stipulated that he should pay for the use of the horse. There was no arrangement as to the payment of the grazing of the horse, which belonged to Mr. Rolleston.

Mr. Brassey’s cross-examination did not elicit anything fresh further than stating that defendant went to Tauranga a week after giving the plaintiff the mare, and that the payment of the 15s. was to be a portion of the £2 10s.

After taking evidence on behalf of the 1 plaintiff Mr. Brassey submitted that a nonsuit should be granted on the ground that a demand should have been made, and no demand had been hiade in this case previous to the bringing of the action. A demand was one of the essential in an action of detinue. Mr. McDougall contended that that was wrong. The evidence was that the defendant came and seized the horse, and took it away, and that was quite enough. To say that they must formally make a demand for the horse was a thing that was not to be found in any lawbooks. This was not an action of detinue. His Worship said on reading the plaint he took it that that was an action for detinue, and therefore the objection against the nonsuit could not be upheld, and he would have to grant the application. [Left Sitting.]