DISTRICT COURT.

Thames Star, Volume XIII, Issue 4268, 5 September 1882, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

THIS DAY. .. (Bafore J. El Macdonald, Esq., District Judge.) The only case was the re-hearing of an action, Lipsey v. Camming, for £25, the value of a horse, and £74 horsehire. This case when heard" previously was decided in favor of plaintiff, defendant not appearing, and judgment given for £25. Subsequently Mr Cummins applied for a re-hearing on the ground that he.had been misled as to the sitting of the Court, and the application was granted. Mr Brassey represented the plaintiff, and Mr Miller the defendant. • The plaintiff's case was that Mr dimming had hired the horse at Paeroa to convey him to Morrinsville with the understanding that he would return it to George Lipsey's at Te Aroha. Mr Francis Lipsey, Mrs Lipsey, Mr John Guilding, and Frederick Lipsey, son of plaintiff, gave evidence in support of the claim. For the defence, S Mr Cumming, the defendant, deposed that he hired the horse at Paeroa from Lipsey to take him to Morrinsville. The horse fell .'with' him three times between Paeroa and Te Aroha. "Was '.old he would get another horse at George Lipsey's, Te Aroha, .but there was none. Had to stay a night there in consequence of the horse beiDg unable to take him further. Left, the, horse at the Nottingham Castle Hotel, in charge of the ostler, and subsequently told Billy the coachman to bring-her -back. He objected to the animal when hiring her, but was told she was better than she looked, j

Alex. Mackay deposed he was present when the horse was hired. Mr Lipsey told Mr Camming to give Billy the horse to take back to George at Te Aroha. If he went to buy the animal he would not give above £2 or £3 for it. Mr Lipsey, Mr Cumining, and the witness were the only persons present, neither Mr Guilding nor Mr 3 lipsey being present. William Falconer, coachdriver between Hamilton and Te Aroha, deposed that Mr Cumming asked him to take the horse back. He tried' to do so, bat the horse was not fit. He had some passengers who would hare liked to ride, but they would have nothing to do with it; its back was in a very bad state. .It would not lead, so he could not take it. I Called at George Lipsey's and told him about the horse; he said ifc was not his, it might be his brother's. The injury could not have been inflicted on the ride between Paeroa and Morrinsville. He would not have given more than £4 for the horse. His Honor said that the evidence was so contradictory that the better plan would be to rejeot the whole of the disputed portions. That beiug so, the defendant having hired the horse, was responsible for returning it. He thought £10 was quite the value of the horse, and as to the saddle, he was not much of a ! judge of saddles, but he thought £5 would purchase a Paeroa saddle, that is a saddle of such a class as is fashionable at ] Paeroa. But then there was the question of law to be got over, that for an action of trover to lie, demand must be made j upon the defendant, and it had not been shown that such demand was made. He must nonsuit plaintiff on that point. However he had given his opinion on the i merits of the case, so that the defendant might know what to expect if a fresh action were brought. Costs of the first trial to be set off against the costs.ia the present action.