RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 2, Issue 221, 25 July 1879, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT.

<o CARTERTON WEDNESDAY. [IIEFORE 11. S, AVARDELL, ESQ,, R.M.] Driscolv. DriscoL—Assaulting his wife. Six months hard labor. Benton v. Robinson.—Debt, £3 4s. Judgment for amount and costs. Sullivan v. \Yadham.-Debt, £lB/19/6. Judgment for amount and cost, Clayv. Sexton,—Debt, £3. Judgment for amount and cost. Armstrong v. W. T. L. Travers and Son.—Debt, £3/5. Judgment for amount and costs. Edmunds v. Ingly.— Debt, Judgment for £3/3 and costs. Peter v. Armstrong.—Debt. Judgment for £l/2 and costs. Jameson v. Duffy. Settled out of Court, Driscoll v. Bairstow.-Debt, £l/10. Nonsuited.

MASTEMW, WEDNESDAY. P. Cockery v. J. V. Smith-Debt, £9 IGs. Mr Beard for plaintiff, Mr Bunny for defendant. Claim for breaking-in two horses. Disputed on the ground that the animals were improperly treated and the defendant sustained damages to the amount of £ls, which was sued for in a cross-action.

Mr Hik, called, deposed that lie drove one of them after it had been handled by Cockery, and that it was in a fair condition. In answer to Mr Sunny, he stated that the animal's shoulders were wrung and it had a bit of a swelling on the leg, Could not tell the cause of the swelling, If witness had a horse being broken in he would not care for it to remain in a coach long. He did not believe the damage done to the animal materially'affected its value. The coach work it had was beneficial rather than injurious. Mr Cockery proved breaking-in the horses for £9 by instruction of defendant. Witness had permission of defendant, to put them in the coach. In answer to Mr Bunny, witness said that when he took the horses he told the defendant that they were of a stamp worth £25 each. Would not have given that sum for them. Had lie told Major Smith they were only worth £5 each he would not have got the job of breaking them in. William Kiel deposed that he attended to the horses in the stable, They were returned to the plaintiff in good condition. G. Shaw, driver for Hastwell Macara and Co.. stated that he drove one of the horses, It was in good condition when handed to him, and the came when he gave it up. James Macara, of the firm of Hastwell, Macara and Co., deposed that he understood they were to be left with the coaches for three months. While they were driven on the line they were well fed and looked after. Valued the one Hik had at £ls. Considered that coach work improved them. Had the shoes of one removed several times on account of it cutting. The swelled leg was caused rolely by the cutting. It was almost impossible to break in young horses without some collar soreness. Both horses brushed when being driven. W, Dixon said he was experienced in horse-breaking. The two in question were scalded on the shoulders. J. V. Smith, the plaintiff, deposed to giving the horses to Cockery to bo broken in, and also giving him permission to put them in thecoaihes for an occasional trip. He objected to their being used habitually in the coaches. Hik advised him subsequently not to leave them too long there. He noticed on one of the hones a bad splint ou a fore leg and a large swelling on hind fetlock, with raw wounds under the collar and traces,. and requested Cockery to deliver them back to him. About five days later they were put into his paddoclc. Both were so knocked about that he hardly knew them again. Subsequently sold them with two others, Considered ha got Lls each for them, and that they would have fetched LlO each more if they had not been knocked about. J, Vile and J. Harding were also called to proye the condition and value of the two horses after they were returned. The Court, in giving judgment, held that the plaintiff nad not been able to fulfil his contract in consequence of the defendant instructing him to return the horses, and that it was proved that a certain falling off in condition and soreness was unavoidable in breaking in young horses. The Court blamed the plaintiff for the delay which occurred in returning the horses after they were demanded, but could not on that ground alone give defendant a -jerdict. The verdict was given in favor of plaintiff for amount and costs. In the cross-action Mr Bunny accepted a nonsuit for his client.