R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VII, Issue 2052, 27 July 1885, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTOX—THIS DAY. Before H. A*. Stratford, R,M. . CIVIL CASES. '' ; Sven NillaenvNeilsenand Peterson.—' Judgment summons £3O ss. Mr Beard for tile plaintiff, The sum of £8 had been paid. The defendant Neilsen, againt whom the proceedings had been taken, appearedand was to his ability to pay, and stated that he'had earned about £3O since October last, when judgment was given. He was busnfalling now, and had money tj come when the contract was finished. He had borrowed £9 to take up a deferred ' payment section. , His Worship said that any money available should certainly have been paid to wipe out 'the'debt. He would make an order for the payment of £l6 in six weeks, which was about .the time the bush falling contract would be finished. Mr Beard suggested that the case mightbe adjourned till that time to, save the cost of fresh summons. \ His Worship adopted this course, and adjourned the case accordingly till the 21st September next, A number of cases, in which the Wairarapa East County Council sued for rates, were ordered to stand over till 2 o'clock. I V. Perry v, W, Bird—Debt £4 8s 7d. Judgment, by-default, for amount and costs 7s. The cases of Ranby v. Birss and Loahy v. Frasi were adjourned. H. Hannah v. C. Rogers—Claim £9, being £6 value of a horse lost out of defendant's paddock, and £3 for loss of time incurred. Mr Sandilands appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Beard for defendant,'

Mr Sandilands stated that the plaintiff had left a horse in the paddock of defen-. dant, who is hotelkeeper at the Taueru, and on going to fetch it he found that it had got out. He held that defendant was liable either to return the horse or to pay its value. Henry Hannah stated that lie was a labourer. He sometimes stopped at defendant's hotel, and had his horse put in a paddock. On the 25th April last he stayed there and left a bay horse, which was put into a paddock by defendant's servant. On the following day he asked the groom for the horse, and after, he had (looked in the paddock he said that the back gate had been loft open, and the horse, as well as some of their own stock, had got out. He then told defendant, who said he would send someone to look for it on the following day. The horse was not found, and on a subsequent occasion when lie asked defendant what he was going to do, he offered him £6, or to go liira halves in buying another. He, defendant, afterwards repudiated this. He had given £l2 for the horse about two years ago. He had lost a lot of time through not having the horse. Cross-examined by Mr Beardlt was just getting dark when lie got to the hotel; he told the groom to put the horse in a paddock. The front gate was fastened with leather,, and the back gate with a. chain, which wasasufficientfastening. Mr Rogers never told him when he saw him about it that some'one had left the gate open ;he had no recollection of it, Defendant did not 1 say that lie had made a thorough search already. He wrote him' on the 30th that the horse had not got home. Defendant afterwards lent him a horse to onable him to go and look for work. For the defence Mr Beard pleaded thero was no negligence on the part of the defendant in looking after the horse, but that the gate of the paddook was apparently wilfully opened by the removal of the chain that had been placed on the gate, and further that the defendant had used every endeavor to recover the animal, that plaintiff had given a misleading description of the horse, which hindered defendant in his endeavor to recover the horse.

0. Rogers, landlord of the Taueru Hotel was called, and gave evidonce in corroboration of these statements and he, by offering a reward arid sending all round the district, had done his best to regain possession of the 'horse. Defendant told plaintiff that he had failed to get the horse, and he had better buy another, defendant would givo him £3 or £4 towards the expepse, Cioss-examined by Mr Sandil&nds ; Defendant had gone round as usual and saw that the gates were fastened at night, He offered to pay £3 or £4 towards the horse and he waß told by Tait, an expert, that the horse was not worth £6.

George Hopkins, groom in the omploy tof defendant, deposed that he had taken he custody of plaintiffs horse on the night in question, had secured the gate after him ; at night ho saw all the cattlo secure and. fastened the gate with the chain, In the morning he found the chain removed, the gate wide open, and all the horses and cattle gone. He had never known the horses to stray from the paddock before. This concluded the case for the defendant,

His Worahip said the Licensing Act, 1881, gave Hotel-keepers the responsibility and priveleges of inn-keepera. Defendant was one who had accommodation for man and beast, and he should treat him, not'as an adjeater of cattle, but as aii hotel-keeper. Plaintiff nonsuited, without costs. The Court then adjourned.