Friday, 27th March.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 342, 28 March 1874, Page 3

Friday, 27th March.

-{Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.) •

M'Combe v. Cotton and Henry.— TTis Worship gave judgment iv this case as follows :— T think.there can be no reasonable doubt but the cow claimed by plaintiff is identical with the one which several of the witnesses have referred to as having been lately seen in Mr. Wright's yard. There is a difference between the description as shown by the written document and by that of the witnesses ■ but that is in some measure accounted for, as the witnesses for the defence examined the cow with a view of giving evidence, and therefore it a not unfair to presume much greater nicety than is usual in buying and selling

large numbers of cattle. There ia no doubt the brand on the near ramp haß been difficult to decipher, for no two of the -witnesses agree exactly in describing it ; but, taking the evidence tbronghout, I imagine that Mr. Wright's description is the most accurate on this point. The question *of identity does not depend alone upon the brands, as Mr. Riddell has sworn to the particular beast. The evidence with regard to ownership is not so satisfactory as I could desire, for both parties claim, either directly or indirectly, from Mr. Grant, and he has not been examined. lam thus left to decide without ths complete proof which could and ought to have been brought. The plaintiff's case shows title and possession in himself and Riddell, from whom he purchased, dating back to the year 1871, and further evidence was given to trace a dissolution of titles a time prior to this ; but as it was not the best proof which could have been given upon the matter, I exclude it from consideration. The defendants have proved that they purchased the cow in 1872, and there they stop, without showing any right in the person from whom they purchased. Taking the evidence as it stands before me, it is undoubted that the plaintiff has shown a better title than defendants, and is entitled to my judgment. With regard to the claim, for a return of the cow, it has been proved to be no longer in existence ; and as I find her market value about the time she was claimed by plaintiff to have been £5 55., I give judgment for that sum. No d, ama g es will be allowed, as the adverse claim has arisen through the neglect of plaintiff and another, from whim he bought her ; costs of Court, £2 ; professional costs, 215.; and witnesses' expenses. Mr. Copland made an application for leave to appeal, and addressed the Bench at length, but as no point of law was raised on which to ground the appeal, the application was not granted. Cowan v. By an. — Thiß case was continued. Though it lasted for some time, little worth recording passed. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for £2 18s.; costs of Court, 125.; and professional costs, 21s.