RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Issue 559, 12 September 1866, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before H. M'Culloch, Esq., R.M.) MONDAY, lOTH SEPTEMBER. One inebriate was fined 10s or 24 hours' imprisonment. Civil Cases. burke y. scully, and densham. Claim for £5 5s : charges on goods at Bluff Harbor. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs, 21s. GRIEVE T. LOWE AND MCGREGOR. Action for £93 damages for non-de-livery of lambs. Mr M'Donald, for plaintiff, Mr Harvey, for defendant. On the application of Mr M'Donald, the hearing of this case was adjourned to Bth October, to enable a material witness to be in attendance, TUESDAY, lITH SEPTEMBER. Hill v. M'lvoe. Claim for £20 damages, for nondeivery of a horse. Mr Harvey, for plaintiff, Mr M'Donald, for defendant. It appeared from the evidence of the plaintiff, Mr Henry Hill, of Hokanni, that about the 29fch of August last, he agreed with the defendant to give him a filler and £8 for, a colt belonging to defeudant. At the time this arrange nenfc was made, it was in the knowledge of both parties that the colt had a blemish on one of its legs, and plaintiff asked defendant about the lump on its leg. Defendant said he had seen the colt that, morning, and the lump was gone. Defendant also said, in answer to plaintiff, ftat the colt was sound. A memorandum ef the bargain was then made and signed and a cheque for the £S given to defendant. Two or three days afterwards, plaintiff was informed that the lump was still on the colt's leg, and he went to defendadt's and saw thac such was the case, and demanded back his filly, which defendant refused to give up. Tae plainnow sued for the £3 paid to defendant, and £12 the value of the filly. T. Salmon corroborated the plaintiff's evidence. The defence was, that defendant did say at the time the bargain was made, the colfc was sound, but that in reply to plaintiffs question about the lump, he (defendant) said, as far as he knew, it was not there. Defendant stated to defendant when plaintiff asked for his filly back, that if he (plaintiff) thought he had made a bad bargain he (defendant) would have given up the filly if plaintiff had not bounced him so much. Mr M'Donald contended that in this case the bargain was completed before any representation had been made by defendant, and therefore whatever he said, did not amount to a warranty. There appeared to be a patent defect in the animal, which the plaintiff had as good opportunity of making himself acquainted with as defendant, and therefore could not, or ought not, to have relied upon any statement of the defendant. Mr Harvey having replied, the Court give judgment for the plaintiff, with costs, the evidence of the plaintiff being in the opinion of the Court, sufficient to prove that while the contract was being made, th defendant had represented that the colt had got rid of the blemish, which was afterwards found to be untx-ue.