PUKEKOHE MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 4, Issue 111, 22 November 1915, Page 4

PUKEKOHE MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday, November 18th. [Before Mr F. V. Frazer, S.M].

The following cases were dealt •itb:—

CIVIL CLAIMS.

Judgments by dt fault were entered for tbe respective plaintiffs, viz:—The Standard lusurance Company, Auckland, (Mr Dtomgool) v. J. R. Sheridan, draper's assistant, Auckland, for tbe amount claimed £BO 15s 7d and costs £4 13s; H. Barnaby (Mr Hopkins) v. T. E. Skinner tor £2 2s Id and costs 10a; Cooper and Curd (Mr Hopkins) v. W Steenso", farmer, Paerata, for 12s 6 and costs 7s.

On a judgment summons Mai tin Cobbald (Mr C. 0. Mahoney) v. A. 0 Ormsby, native interprets, Te Kuiti, fci £l9 16s 4d and costs £1 lis lOd, tbe defendant was ordered to pay toithwith, in default three weeks' imprisonment. A HORSE TRANSACTION.

A dispute arising out of an exchange <f borsts was tbe cause cf Timothy Joseph Rogers, farmer, Pum, claiming from Selwyn Howard, farmer, of Buckland, t.e value of a horse, £22. Mr C. 0. Mahony appeared for plaintiff aid Mr Hopkins for defendant.

Tbe case was of a lengthy nature, several witnesses being called.

In stating toe case tor tbe plaintiff Mr Matony said tbat all the arrangements were made verbally. Plaintiff was sought after by defendant, an J as a result an exchange of hoisas was mad?.

Plaintiff deposed that defendant offered him £l7 for his horse, for which he was asking £lB. He would not sell it, but eventually agreed to exchange it for a. horse belonging to defendant which defendant claimed was a champion horse, would go in all harness and could be driven by a lady. He further paid defendant £3. He took delivery of the. horse, but when he tried to woik it on his farm at Pun it would not budge with the exception of once when it worked in a light tine barrows, alongside another borse. Be offered the horse for sale at auction but coold not get his price. It would not work in single harness. Plaintiff rode it to Pukekohe and then to defendant's farm, where a trial was given in a long she iter. It appeared to work well, but plaintiff was r.ot satisfied with it, and told defendant. The horse was being discussed when defendant offered to purchase it back for £2l, the purchase to be made by a promissory note, due in two months, but when plaintiff asked for an endorsement of the document defendant refused, and the possibilities of a satisfacotry conclusion were squashed, but, however, it was agreed tbat defendant should keep the horse on his farm for a week, when a trial would be made, the horse to pull a load weighing half-a-ton up East street Hill, tbe horse to be put in the cait at the hill, but when the day arrived the horse was driven to tbe rpot selected for the trial already attached to the cart. Defendant stood at the horse's head during the trial, walking alongside and on ?ne occasion' hit the animal on tbe bead. After going a certain dibtance it stopped and plaintiff attempted to drive it, but it would not go. Mr Edmund Bilkey also tried but without reouit. The borae was obdurate and would not move. He accordingly refused to take it.

Corroborative evidence was given by William Steenson, labourer, Paeiata, and Richard Reynolds, farmer, Pum. Mr Hopkins contended that the deal was clinched when tbe plaintiff offered tbe horse for sale. Defendant stated that be had taken a fancy to Rogers' horse and bad made an ex hange. He walked alongside the borse when it was given tbe trial on the hill because be considered tbat the bait ton load, together with the vehicle, was a good load for a light horse.

Tbe h rse had never stopped, nor had it given him any difficulty A boy bad diiven it and bis wife move it. It seemed as if it would rot go fur Rug rs, wbu to,k it without a ttial. He exchanged a borae valued at £l9 10s for it. some few months previously. James Goolding, farmer, Pukekobe, gave corroborative evidence. He considered the bone did remarkably well on tbe day of the trial. Arthur Young, commission agent, Pukekohe, deposed that be had seen the horse in harness and considered it went well. Alexander Blythe, labourer, Buckland, considered tbe horee was very qui ft. He bad seen it in harness reuglarly, and it was always working well. Edmund Bilkey, farmer, Pukekohe, related how he and plaintiff tried to drive the horse, and it would net go. The Magistrate, io summing up, said that be was of tbe opii ion, in regard to tbe question of warranty re a lady being able to drive it, that it was an expression'made to infer tbat th« horse was quiet. There appeared to be a difficulty in sarting the borse in single harness. The trial .on the bill was severe and very satisfactory. It was very hard to discriminate as to which was the final arrangement, but be considered tbat the trial on the hill was. Plaintiff was non-suited and was ordered to pay the costs £3 6s.