WHOSE PONY?

Taranaki Daily News, 19 October 1922, Page 6

WHOSE PONY?

A TONGAPORUTU PROBLEM A FAMILY DISPUTE.' The question as to who had the property rights in a pony was a problem set before Mr. A. Al. Mowlem, S.AL, at the Alagistrate’s Court at New Plymouth yesterday, when Mrs. Mary Jane McCoy applied for an order requiring her grandson. Edward Denis O’Sullivan, to deliver to her a pony at present in his keeping. The plaintiff keeps the accommodation house at Tongaporutu ferry. A good deal of evidence for both sides was contradictory. The statement of the plaintiff was that' she had purchased the pony off a man named Tom Wright on the eve of his departure to the war, the understanding on her part being that she would sell it back to him at the same price if he were fortunate.' enough to return. Her son, the defendant's uncle, had had the use of it till he himself enlisted, when young O’Sullivan came to live with her. The boy, as he was then, had ridden the pony ro school, and had used it generally since, and when his uncle had returned, had gone back to his own people, taking th«* pony and hie grandfather’s saddle and bridle with him. When, however, she saw. that other people were using the animal, she demanded the return, and alleged that one evening, when young O’Sullivan was brought by his father to say goodbye to her preparatory to leaving for Hastings, because of his love sickness with the girl in the background. he had promised to send it down next morning. The Hastings journey, however, fell through because, as later transpired, the young fellow had found that his father had no power to send him away, and when she again asked for the return of the x pony he claimed it on the grounds that his uncle, who had died in the meantime, had made him a present of the animal.

Answering Mr. Quilliam, tlfe. plaintiff said that she had not paid the boy’s uncle regular wages, but had done an his purchases lor him or had given him such money as he required. She had not bought the pony for him-, but had hired it out on various occasions with other horses. She denied that she had told the boy O'Donnell that her son had made the defendant a present of the animal. The defendant’s father, Frederick Walter O’Sullivan, corroborated the evidence regarding the promise to return the pony, and also stated that the pony belonged to Airs. McCoy. The defendants story agreed with that of hs grandmother up to the date of his uncle’s return, and he asserted definitely that his uncle had made him a present of the pony because of the way he had helped his grandmother and looked after the animal. His title had not been disputed until April of the current year, and all the members of the family had known that the pony was his. He denied that he had promised to return the pony, as stated, while he had heard his grandmother remark to O’Donnell that his uncle had made him a present of it. A further suggestion of the family differences became apparent when he told counsel and the Bench that he had not called his mother and his brothers and sisters to support his claim because they had turned against him.

John Henry Kendall and Richard O’Donnell related conversations they had had with O’Sullivan’s uncle anent the pony, wherein he had referred to the pony as belonging to young O’Sullivan, and had also mentioned that he had given him the pony because he had looked after it so well and because he himself could not afford to keep it m chaff and oats. Joseph Arthur O’Donnell also corroborated the defendant’s statements concerning his grandmother s remark about giving him the pony. • Mr Alowlem. after reviewing the evidence, said he believed the plaintiff’s side of the storv. and made an order for the pony to be' returned within seven days, with costs totalling £4 4s.