R M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XII, Issue 3791, 22 April 1891, Page 2

R M. COURT.

CARTERTON -TUESDAY

(Before Colonel Roberts, R.M.)

R Fairbrother anu Son v F Sunkell. Judgment summons. Mr Achesou for judgment creditors. Ordered to pay 5s a week, in default 5 days' imprisonment.

Donald McLaren v John Grant.— Claim, £ll 15s for sale of a horse. Mr Beard for plaintiff, Mr Acheson for defendant.

The plaintiff deposed that the sale price ot the horse wa3 £2O. The balance as now sued for /was still owing. / to Mr Achesou; Thi/ defendant has never complained to/me about the mare. The reason why I agreed to take her back was/ that I would rather tako her than allow him to have her for £B 55./ I did not agreeto take the mare but I was going tq send a iman to take her, only that I heard sh« was dead. I will not swear that! did not send a muu to fetch her Aack. Tke amount I received oniiccouut ot the mare, was paid by shearing some sheep for me. I that the defendant did not sbear/1125 sheep lor me. I paid tbeifefeiidaut one pound per 100 for djbvossexamiued by Mr Beard : The defendant had the mare a day pv two on trial and said he' was perfectly satisfied with her.

John Fraser deposed that he was a shepherd residing at Tupurupuru uud was present at the time of the sale of the mare by the plaintiff to the defeudant, and the money due for shee-wng -was to go in part payment for ,the mare. The defeudant owed him £i ilia which was paid to him by the plaintiff by order of the defeudant. To Mr Acheson; I am still a shepherd and still in the employ of the plantiff. I was present at the time of the sale of the mare, but being so long since, I cauuot remember all the conversation on the matter. I saw the defendant take the mare away from the plaintiff's place, and I knew that he had agreed to buy her before he took her away. I sold a saddle to the defendant for £± 10s and another saddle. Cross-examined by Mr Beard; I

know the amount was about £8 ss, by what the plaintiff told me. I saw bo cheques passed. The defendant was present. The defendant told me the mare was dead.

John Grant, defendant, deposed that when he bought the maro the plaintiff said she was by Troubadour, ar.d wben he found out that lie had made a misrepresentation about ilie pedigree of the mare he told him about it and he owned that be was not quite sure about the pedigree. He had a letter from the plaintiff agreeing to cry off from the bargain, but he bad mislaid the letter and could not find it.

To Mr Beard : I cannot say how long after the sale I received the letter from the plaintiff. Tht letter I refer to was in answer to one 1 sent to the plaintiff about the mare. I may have inadvertently destroyed the letter.

Cross examined by Mr Acheson : The purport of the letter received from the plaintiff was that he agreed to send a man for the mare and return me the money that I had paid on her. The mare died three or four days before the man came for liar. It was some three or four months from the time I received the letter from the plaintiff when the mare died. I had liiadeTyjuse of the mare during that time, that the number of sheep wnich OteHSfidJgrnlaintiff was 1425 at £1 per 100. ItteTflßying Fraser for the saddle I handed the balance, £lO ss, to the plaintiff as part payment for the mare. To Mr Beard : I did not take her till I had paid the money £lO ss. The reason that I did not take any proceedings to recover the money after the mare died, was, that I thought he had a right to keep the money which had been paid, but no right to any more. Donald MacLaren, recalled, stated that he had not writteu any letter in reference to taking the mare back. Judgment for plnmtiff, with costs, £1 14s, and solicitor's fee, 21s. JacaW Heberly vO. H. Giles. Claim £9. Mr Middleton for plaintiff, Mr Acheson for defendant, After a deal of conflicting evidence, judgment was given for defendant with costs.

F. Feist v J. Mackenzie. Claim £1 18s 3d for goods supplied. Mr Acheson for plaintiff. Judgment by default, wifcn costs.