RM. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume IX, Issue 2769, 8 December 1887, Page 2

RM. COURT.

MASTERTON-WEDNESDAY. (Before S. Yon Sturmer, R.M. HORSE TRAINING DISPCTE. Thomas D. Thompson v Thomas Quinlivan, jun. -Claim for £44 for stabling and feeding horses and board and lodging for a man, Mr Bunny for plaintiff, Mr Beard for defendant. This case occupied the court the whole afternoon, and arose thvough an alleged breach ot an agreement on the part of the defendant. From the evidence given, it appears that the parties to the action entered into a verbal agreement with reference to a certain vaeehorso, which belonged to defendant, and which was to be fed and stabled by the plaintiff, who was, to receive half its winnings' at the Wellington race meeting. This agreement was broken by defendant, who just prior to the races removed the horse from plaintiff's stables to another in the town, and then tried to make other arrangemejts with plaintiff, which were not accepted. The evidence given was very conflicting, the cross cxaminationsinsome instances being most amusing. As the case Quinlivan v Thompson had a bearing upon the present one, judgment was reserved till the conclusion of this. In Quinlivan v Thompson, judgment was given for £l3, costs 265, solicitor's fee 21s. In the case of Thompson v Quinlivan, his Worship considered that in equity and good conscienco the plaintiff was entitled to the judgment; lie would, however, reduce the amount of the claim with regard to the horse Steelbone. Judgment was then given for plaintiff for £25 4s, costs 30s, solicitor's fee £3 3s.

Mr Beard asked his Worship to reverse his judgment from that of equity and good conscience to a legal point, so that his client would have an opportunity of appealing against it. His Worship considered that the •circumstances of the case would not warrant any other judgment, and informed Mr Beard that if a good agreement had been in existence defendant had his remedy. Mr Beard retorted that his Worship was debarring his client from testing the validity of the agreement, His Worship said he had given his judgment on the merits of the case, and added that he considered that the plaintiff had been shamefully treated in the matter by the defendant. Mr Beard said that nothing had come out in evidence to warrant his Worship in giving that opinion.

His Worship: That will do, Mr Beard. Judgment is given in the case.