Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

DISTRICT COURT.

TIMARU—THIS DAY. . (Before His Honor Judge Ward.) CITO CABZB. Gillespie v. Sibbald-—Claim, £2OO damages. Mr White for plaintiff; Mr Jameson for defendant. This case was adjourned from Saturday last. For the defence, J. Sibbald, defendant, said he bad no such number of of horses as 600 or 700, and never sold any such number. The following day he handed back to Wildie, Allan and Stumbles the £4, saying the bargain was off, as be bad no such number of horses. Two days after, he was laid up under the cflre of Dr Macintyre, with erisypelas. He was laid up at Wai-iti, and Gillespie came out to see him, and witness then told bim it was useless for him to go Jfor any horses to the run, as there had been no mustering. Be sent Mr McKerrow up, to represent him. He bad had no conversation subsequently, with the plaintiff.

To Mr White—lt was at about Six in the evening of the 7th that I saw Gillespie at the Boyal Hotel. It was after the National Mortgage had shot up. I had come from there. I met plaintiff by. accident. We spoke of horse * dealing in general. I brought out the agreement (produced) during the conversation. My bargain with McKerrow was then off. I offered Gillespie the horses on the same conditions. He agreed, and I took the earnest-money of £4. I am not positive whether I received the £4 that night or next day. The four or five witnesses who they saw me take the £4 next mornmg may be correct in their evidence.' I camlet say positively about the matter. I cannot be positive when I received it, but I know I got the money. It was a wrong place to do business in, / Hfs Honor remarke'd that “cash on delivery ” were the terms of the agree, ment, and, by plaintiff’s own showing, he had not been prepared with the money. To His Honor—l was not at that time prepared to accept Gillespie's cheque in payment for the horses. Cross-examination continued —At last mustering I mustered about 300. I cannot tell you how many horses I have, to a few score. I have sold very few horses during the last year. ■ All of us, more or less, had (too much beer at the interview.

His Honor—When did this deluge of beer come on ? Witness—l am not sure whether it was night or morning. Cross-examination continued—l believe we kept it up all night into next morning. His Honor—lt was probably the same old drank all through. Mr White—His Honor’s remark as to the “ same old drunk >’ applies only to the defendant, not to my client, who does not admit the soft impeachment. Arthur Eobert Spalding, manager of the National Mortgage Agency in Timaru, said be was agent for Mr Sibbald. He had a conversation with Mr Sibbald about the agreement be. tween the parties. Frederick Collie Bourdon a clerk to the grain agency, said he knew plaintiff and defendant by sight. He was at theßoyal at dinner one night with : them. He heard a conversation between the parties, about horses, but he could not tell the date. He never saw them together again. To Mr White—l oan say nothing about the date; the conversation was evidently about some transaction that had occurred during the day. There ; could be no doubt at all they were both drunk at the time.

John C. McKerrow, stockbroker, said he remembered plaintiff being ill ; and being instructed to go to bis (plaintiff’s) station. He knew the station. He had rounded up the horses, and inspected them. He did not think the horses were worth .the money. He thought he inight claim to be a judge of horses. Mr White intimated that he should not think it necessary to cross-examine Mr McKerrow, on that point, at any rate. This was the defendant’s case.

Mr Jameson, for defeneant, applied for a non-suit, on the ground that the conditions precedent Had not been complied with in the matter. Judgment was given for defendant with costs..

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/SCANT18820904.2.14

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2946, 4 September 1882, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
679

DISTRICT COURT. South Canterbury Times, Issue 2946, 4 September 1882, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT. South Canterbury Times, Issue 2946, 4 September 1882, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert