RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1828, 13 December 1888, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Geraldine — Wednesday, Dec. 12, 1881. (Before Rev. G. Barclay and R. H. Pearpoint and H. W. Moore, Eaqs,, Js.P.) CIVIL CASES. Maria Fitzgerald v. John Goodwin— Claim £l2, for the value of a horse hired by defendant, and which died while in his possession. Mr Wilson Smith appeared for plaintiff and Mr J. Hay for defendant, Pluntiff stated that she hired some horses to defendant at 6s per week, to be returned in good order and condition. When defendant returned the horses they were in bad condition. She was told that the horse claimed - for had died from a cold.

To Mr Hay ; The horse that died had a roach back. The horse had never had

an illness before that she was aware of. She contended that the horse bad died of liungerj cold, and not being properly looked after, Had bred the., horse herself. Considered the horse was worth £l2, Never said when she saw the horses at defendants that they were in better

condition than when they left her. The

I horses were in very poor condition when they came back to her. Was not aware of her own knowledge that the horses ware lllusad. Alfred Wadsworth deposed to having

worked the horses. Had worked the one that died. It had a roach back, but that made no difference to its working capabilities. Fed the horses while at Mr* hitzgersld’s. When they came back they were in a slightly poorer condition than when they went away. , Should think the horse was worth about £lO.

To Mr Hay : If I was wanting to work the horse should not sell him for less than £lO. It was a common thing for horses to die without any reason for the same being assignable. H. B. Webster: Knew plaintiff’s horses. Knew (he roach-backed one. Saw it about five months ago. Yalued it at about £lO. Roach-back made no difference to a horse working. If it had not a roach back it would have been worth about £l6.

To Mr Hay ; Thought selling value was about £lO. Horses often died from no appa'ent cause, John Tanley : Knew Mrs Fitzgaral i’s horses. Knew the horse in question. Was a good, free working horse, and was in good working condition. Was quite sound when he worked it. Saw the horses when they came back. They were then in a poor condition.

To Mr Hay : Saw the horses two days before Mr Goodwin took them. They were in good working condition. Wheo they canoe buck saw no signs of the horses having been illused. The day before the horse died it was a bitterly cold day. John Goodwin, defendant, deposed to having the use of the horses. He fed them three times a day, and had a good grass paddock for them. Was to have sent the horses home on Thursday if h

had finished with th«m. Did not send J (hem home on Thursday as it was raining j very hard. There was a sale in Timaru j on Jhe Saturday, and the horse that was ' being broken in was to go to the sale Saw the horse that died on the Thursday evening, when it took its feed well. Neither he nor his brother noticed anything wrong with the horses either then or when it was at work, and hs had always treated it carefully. Had no reason to believe that it died from anything but natural canses. Had seen several horses die like that one. Returned the horses the following day, and told plaintiff about the one having died. They were ia about the same condition when returned as when ho got them. Plaintiff visited him while the horses were at work, saw them, and mads no complaint about them at all. Considered he had batter feed than plaintiff, who appeared to have but little grass, most of the good land being ufider crop. Considered the selling value of the horse was about £4. To Mr Smith ; Did not work the horse on Thursday, ss the day was too wet. Did not know what the horse died of—made no examination. His brother first saw the horse after it had died. Fed the horses in the shed the previous night, and they could either remain in or go out. Received no covers from plaintiff, and did not use any for her horses. To Mr Hay: Had no suspicion ot any illness in the horse. The weather was not such as to lead him to think thne a horse turned out on the night in question would die of cold.

Thomas Goodwin, brother, of the previous witness, corroborated his evidence as to the condition of the horses, the amount of feed they received, the apparently sound state of the horse on the Thursday night when it. took its food, and his finding it almost dead on the following morning, and its dying while he had gone to get some medicine. - Mr Hay, addressing the Bench, argued that it was incumbent upon; the plaintiff to prove neglect of the; and this be had utterly failed to do. The plaintiff herself, of her own personal knowledge, knew absolutely nothing as to the treatment of the horses, while all the witnesses had agreed that the horses were well cared for. There had only been an implied agreement when defendant took the horses, and he argued that such implied agreement had not been-broken, quoting Addison on Contracts in support of his contention. Mr Wilson Smith asked for judgment to be given for plaintiff on three grounds. First, defendant had not returned the horse on the Thursday as he had promised to do ; second-y, that he had not used the care «u ordinary farmer would have done in that he turned the horse ont uncovered on a bitterly cold night; and thirdly, that he had expressly agreed to return the horse, which agreement be had not carried ont. He contended that the defendant was liable on all three points. As to the value of the horse he considered the evidence proved that the horse was worth fully £lO. j After a short consultation the Bench stated that the contract was that the horse should be returned. The horse was not returned, and the judgment would, therefore, be for plaintiff for £8 and costs, with solieitm’s fee, £l. After a short conversation, the Bench stated that the contract was that the horse should be returned. The horse was not returned, and the judgment would, therefore, be for plaintiff for £8 and costs, with solicitor’s fee, £l.

Geraldine Town Board v. W, Clarke— Claim £1 10s, being half the cost of a strip of asphalt laid in front of defendant's shop. After partly hearing the case, in the aourae of which defendant contradicted in toto the evidence of the clerk to the board, and stated that the asphalt was laid contrary to his expressed wish, the case was adjourned till Tuesday next, at 10 a.m.

8.. Hammond v. W. Hooper—Claim £6 os6d. Judgment summons. Defendant did not appear. Plaintiff having proved defendant’s ability to pay, an order was made for the payment of £1 per month. The evidence of Mr R. H. Pearpoiat was taken for transmission to Dunedin for use in a case in which he is interested there, and the Oourt adjournad till Tuesday next, at 10 a.m.