RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Issue 1253, 20 May 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

A. case of some importance to breeders of horsea and horse-breakers came on for trial before the Resident Magistrate on Monday, the 16th insL Mr W. Hay ward sued Mr M'Lean for £20, the value of a colt which was killed while in defendant's possession for the purpose of being broken in. Mr Harvey appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Wade for defendant. From the evidence it appeared that so far back as 1867, plaintiff, a settler at Waianiwa, gave defendant three colts to break in, the animal in question being one of them. The agreement between the parties was drawn np at Wallacetown, and the horses were to be delivered after breaking at that place, defendant being at the time living with his brother at Strathlane farm, in that vicinity. Two of the colts were returned within a short time, but the third was taken by defendant to Switzer's, where he had gone shortly after, and was killed by rolling into a rut on the margin of a river, from which it could not extricate itself. The case seemed to hinge on the question of defendant's right to remove the animal to such a distance without the knowledge or consent of the owner, and one or two experts were called in to speak to the custom prevailing in Buch cases. For the defence it was urged that when a horse was placed in a breaker's : hands it was under his unlimited control, and that he might use it as he thought proper, so long as he treated it with reasonable care and attention ; that no stipulation had been made as to the locality in which the process of breakin?-in was to be performed ; that it was necessary to accustom a horse to strange localities before it could be said to be thoroughly broken ; that the two other colts belonging to plaintiff had been ridden by defendant to as great distances, by plaintiff's consent ; that the colt was not taken to Switzer's for defendant's benefit, he having taken a horse of his own at the same time ; that the colt was a wicked one, and required more than ordinary handling ; that the place where it was turned out was ordinarily safe for, and much used by, horses ; and that plaintiff gave a tacit consent to. the removal by subsequently writing to defendant to sell the colt at Switzer's. On the part of the plaintiff it was denied that he had known of the other colts being ridden so far from home, or that he had ever written authorizing defendant to sell the horse; (defendant admitted being unable to produce the letter). He alleged on the contrary that he had never been able to trace defendant's whereabouts for some eighteen months after his departure from the neighborhood of Wallacetown, and that at the time the bargain was made it was clearly understood the colts were to be broken-in in the district. His Worship was of opinion that the horse had been taken an unreasonable distance — under the arguments for the defence he might as well have taken him on to Dunedin, or even further — and defendant was consequently liable for any damage resulting therefrom. With regard to defendant's plea of justification through the letter he alleged to have received from plaintiff, authorizing him to sell, that was entirely contradicted by plaintiff, and he held that it rested with defendant to produce the letter ; having failed to do so, judgment would be for plaintiff, with costs. On Wednesday, 18th, M'lntosh v. Keith, was one of a description of cases which have been pretty frequent of late. Plaintiff sought to recover £3, service of the entire hone Southorrio,

payment of which was refused on the ground that the money was not due until the mare was shown to be in foal, a guarantee having been given to that effect. Plaintiff positively denied' the guarantee, and in support of his denial '. proved that the ordinary terms, without ; guarantee, had been four guineas, and that he had knocked off the £1 4a in the present charge on account of having stayed some days at defendant's house. The defendant wm as certain that a guarantee had been "iven, but had no proof to v show. He said it was not customary far such bargains to be made in writing* His Worship expressed his surprise that so little dire was taken to define the terms of such igreements, and to commit them to writing, remarking that in such cases the simplest form of written note between the parties would often save a world of trouble and mutual dissatisfaction. ,He believed neither party in the case to be guilty of wilful misstateraents, while both ha<i evidently misunderstood each other. It was clear the service claimed tor had been performed, and as the grounds of denial were not substantiated, judgment would be for plaintiff, with costs, £2 ss. Mr Wade appeared for plaintiff, defendant in person. M? Donald v. Trainer, £3 6s for rent, was givoo j for plaintiff with costs. . :