LOSS OF A HORSE

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 364, 27 October 1932, Page 6

LOSS OF A HORSE

OWNER OF HIRED ANIMAL SEEKS TO RECOYER VALUE NEGLIGENCE NOT PROYED The loss of a horse was the subject of an action for the recovery of £40 brought by Thomas O'Grady against Wilson's Timber Mills, Ltd., before Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M., yesterday. The statement of claim set forth' that the company had hired the horse for £1 10/- a week and undertaken to feed, shoe and cai'e for the animal. The horse had a leg broken and had to be destroyed. It was contended that the paddock in which the horse had been kept was unsafe and that the company was therefore responsible for its loss. For the defence it was held that the paddock was quite safe and that the company did not hesitate to run its own horses there. There was nothing more than ordinary risk in such bush countrv.

His Worship said the law was simple: Where an animal was injured in the hands of a bailee it was presumed that the bailee had been negligent, but if the bailee could show that h'e had not been negligent it was then for the bailor to prove that he had. It was alleged that the company had been negligent in keeping the horse in a certain paddock. The obligation on a bailee was to exercise reasonable care. Did the placing of the horse in the paddock constitute negligence? Evidence was given that there was nothing unreasonable in keeping a horse in suc$ a paddock and two of the witnesses had horses of their own in the paddock within reasonable care. He therefore could not findl that the defendant company had been guilty of negligence. At the same time he was sorry for the man who had lost his horse and suggested that the company meet.him with regard to costs.