RESERVED DECISION.
At the Magistrate's Court, yesterday morning, MrR. H. Turton, S.M., delivered judgment in the case Alfred Henry Tinkham and Thomas William Miller v. John Alfred Leahy, a claim for the return of horses or £55 in lieu thereof. His Worship stated that plaintiff entrusted three horses to defendant to break in, the latter in [return to have the use ot them for six months. Defendant took the horses and placed them in the paddock, and one day they were missing. The question was, what was the degree of care defendant should have taken? He should have taken such precautions as are ordinarily taken by prudent men'to protect their own property. Disappearance from the paddock does not necessarily mean loss, tor a loss through no fault at all of defendant's would save him from liability. Horses getting out are often recaptured, and the proper means of search should be followed. In this case defendant should have done more than he did. Ha could immediately have notified the poundkeepe-, and be could have advertised. Judgment would be given for plaintiff for £37 and costs.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WAG19100115.2.23
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 9691, 15 January 1910, Page 5
Word count
Tapeke kupu
184RESERVED DECISION. Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 9691, 15 January 1910, Page 5
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Wairarapa Age. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in