HAMILTON R M COURT. Before W. N. Searancte. Esq, Resident Magistrate.

Waikato Times, Volume X, Issue 600, 25 March 1876, Page 2

HAMILTON R M COURT. Before W. N. Searancte. Esq, Resident Magistrate.

Thursday, 23rd March, 1878. OWBN "v Mul-lions — This oaie in a broach of the Impounding Act, and was adjourned from last Court day. Mr WuiUker for defendant. Mr Hay for plaintiff. On the application of Mr Whiutkar it was again adjourned. Nbalbv Mokxbosb— Mr Wbitaker for plaintiff, claim 17» 6d fur work done. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff with costt, £1 9* 6d.

Pottbe v BAtJiß— Mr Hay for plaintiff. No appearance of defendant. Olaim, £10 9j 8d for good* supplied. Judgment for plaintiff with ooats £2 10s.

PnxiirG tßesbe— Mr Whitaker for plain tiffj Mr Hsy for defendant, This was un action to recover a sum of £4 for breaking io a hone for defendant. Gt. B Beers sworn, laid I sm a settler tesiding near Hamilton. I never gave plaintiff a filly to break in for ma, I remember in August last baring a con»eTjation with plaintiff on the road ; Ue said he had heard I had a hor«e to break in. I said I had. He asked me if t would let him brtak him in for me. I atked him if he knew how. He Bind he thought he did and if 1 would lot him br*»k my horse he would give me satisfaction. We settled ho wag to break in the torse for the sum of £4, I also •aid that I had a filly I wished to have mouthod. I had broken her in myself but iho was not nice about the mouth, and that if ho broke in the hor*e to my e»iis faction I would let him have the filly to ti le about and mouth her for me. It wag distinctly 'understood that he wm te break in tht horse at once. <He agreed to come in a day or two. I said if he would notify the day of his coming I would get the hone and hand it over to him. t was particular on this as I wished to be there and see ho«r he handled him. Plaiuliff never came f>r tho horse. About six or teven weeks after I heard from my man that the plaintiff had come down and taken th» filly away. I wits angry and tdld my man to tell Mr. Pill ng to bring back the filly. I wrote to Mr, Pilling about three "weeks after he look the filly. I did not tell Mr. Pilling the filly was unmanageable. I did say she was a little hard, ia the mouth ; by that I wean a li.tlo hard to govern. She would no* sometimes go tho way ■he was wanted, I could always get her to go after a little time My stepson, Mr. Wright, first rode hor ; he rofl« her frequently. She was one df the quietest animtls I ever met with. 1 neror knew her kick or bite She bucked a little at one time, bul not with one of the children on liur or alter I broke her. She is quiet vow She due- 1 not buck now. I d.ire say sbo would do so if "he had occasion. I value her at from £80 to £33. Her mouth now is ibout the same as when I broke her in. She is a littlt hard in the mouth jet. Francis Pilling sworn said, I am plaintiff in this case, 1 am a settler residing in Hamilton. I arranged with defendant to break in a filly. He spoke first of the horse. Before we parted, he stid I hare a filly no one is able to ride, she has thrown my^onoff two or three times. He asked me to take her after breaking the horse. I agreed for £4. I delayed going for the horse for a week. 1 saw the defendant again, and asked might I take the filly first. He said lm didn't care which, and told me where to find tihe filly. In about a week after tha second conversation I went and fetched her. I saw his man at the stables. He told me Captain 'Beere win not then up. He told me which 'field the fllly was in. I drove her in, defendant's -son and bis man being bath present. The man warned me to be 'careful in 'catching her, lest she kicked me. Defendant's son warned mt also After a deal of trouble tho three of us caught her. 1 got a rope on Tier and tried t* lead "her, but coJld not. I put th» saddle on her, and as -soon as I mounted she commenced playing up. The man «fd, "I think you've got your match no*." After som» coaxing I got her a little way, «nd she commenced again ; after a littl« while she went on a little further and then stuck me up for half an hour on the road. I got her home after much trouble. Next morning I bridled her again* she then kioked at me. I longed her *ever«l times which made her quiet. I had the mare in my bands for three wrek», and made her perfectly quiet. At the end of that time I brought her to Hamilton, and put her into Mr Wood's stable. The gate was left open and she got out. I then heard from defondant that she was down at his place. He asked me to go down and .get her. Ho made -no complaint. 1 went down for the filly, and she was in defendant* paddock. I went down and caught h»r. A week after 1 took her home I saw him, and be asked me to bring her home again. I hare broktn in a great many horses. 1 understand the work. Tho second time I brought her back she cat up rusty close alongside a wire fence and kicked her hind leg! through the fence. I got 'her out of tho wire. It was after this defendant saw her mMr Wood's yard and remarked 'that she looked T«ry well. I received the following letter from Captain Beero: —

flamiUon, Febrnmry 21, 1576. " ©ear "Sir,— l wai extremely astonished at reecirtng jour note of the 18th -asking ms for £4, the price of breaking in a liorae, considering the oirouinßtauces of the otic-: lit. That you did not break, in the borse; 2nd. That you let the animal break way and nearer took the least trouble to get it back ; 3rd. That you almost killed the animal, and disfigured "her in a fearfnl mauner ; 4tk. That after I had recovered the horse you came and teok her out of my plaoe without leare or license ; 6th. That when requested to auod htr h.ome again yon did not da

so «id when she was brought home she wss complete* duiigured a second time. Taking all you haw not the lraat right to pay. On the other hand, I could have made you MT heavy damages'for injury and trying to obtain money under false pretences, inasmuch as ft you undertook what you were evidently incapable * ofdoing.-I remain, &c , Ck B. Bntt" Cross-examined- 1 am not a properly qualified horee-breaker. I made the arrangement with defendant on the road. The arrangement was as stated by defendant in hie evidence. He asked m- to «t him know when 'I wat 'ready to take the horse, and be would deliver it to nie. I did not give him such notice. I then arranged to take the filly first. He told me he could not ride the filly. I hare seen defendant riding her daily since I broke her in. I swear it was not a month between «»t seeing defendant and my fetching ( i the filly. I could not say whether the agree- - ment was made out in November. I don't remember when I went for the filly. The man did not object to- my taking the filly when I went for her— he helped roe to catch her. I don t recollect his sayingtue filly had been got in for defendant's step-daughters to ride. I kept the fillY for about three week* or a month. Defendant did not camplain of her being damaged ~«he was not damaged in any way. 1 don t remember seeing defendant at Reynold s farm. When I pot the filly a second time defendant s man gave her overto me. When defendant asled mo to send the filly bare be made no oomplnint that I had taken her. When I first arranged with <le- , fendant, the understanding was not that I was to hare' the filly to ride as consideration for , making her -fit to ride, but that I should be paid fc for the work. To the Court,— When I gave the mare back I • consider «he was. thoroughly broken in and.quiet 1 ••"»s a dog , j ' W A Silver, sworn, said I am a newspaper | > proprietor living at Hamilton- » I knew the ; fiUy - when «he firat was brought home by plaintiff. I 1 know something about horses. L looked -on tor then is a perfect beast ; she would cow kick, and ■ Wte at any one going up to*er. »] saw plaintiff riding her and ehe' would stand and kick, bhe was not Jamb like. When he had done with her the second feme sl.e was in Rood -order and had merely scraped the skin of her hind legs m 1 the wia* fence. It w»s"no dififißurement. did tiotJßO lame after it when ridden that day. 1 - conside/tbat she wan thoiougbly broken by - plaintiff^ , . _ To'the Court— She was a brute when plaintiff took her oter, and qoiet when plaintiff handed her ba*k. Edward Pillintf, brdther of the plaintiff, deposed to the ticious character of the filly when it first was brought from defendant's place. C CWtd) » settler residing at Hamilton, doposed that he knew the fiUy too well. He allowed j , plaintiff' »o put ber in stable, Sho kicked at him and \ bit tat him when brought to the stable. Had often seen v plaintiff on the filly. Wat anything but quiet. Afterwards when plaintiff recurnsd her to defendant s son, she was much quieter — the" was perfectly rideable. dS4 ■ was little snotfgh for breaking her in. Cross-examined— l ' remember the time the ' filly was away from plaintfif. • "Plaintiff and defendant were present at my place. Plaintiff said the hone' was gone and defendant naked him to look for it. Plaintiff did not use the words' 4 ' the hone is Tery mnch daroeged,'*nd I'll be obliged to you to get her aftd bring her back." I will - swear he used no such wards. This concluded the case (ct plaintiff. Defendant was then examined for the defence : I neTer authorised anyone to give the mare to Pilling ; I first knew my mare was taken about « two days afterwards;'! b'lew> up' my man «or letting the mare go without my leuve. I told .' the man Ur selUthe plaintiff to return the mare; iully seven weeks elapsed between leaking the agreement to break in the horse and plaintiff fetching away the firly. 1 1 will »wear more than six weeks -elapsed. I commenced bieakmg in the horse my«elf. I also intended mouthing the filly. I never 'meant Mr Pilling to break either. T • «ever represented the filly as 'vicious. 1 never told plamtia- he might take the filly first I never Baw the lilly tiH some time in November ; ■ she was then on my run. 'She appeared to be wild, -and si lappet of «km wavoff her chest. 'She « looked as X she bad been badly " stated." I did - not vtrimpt to touch her ; I looked to plaintiff to • deli». r her to me. < I raw Pilling next day, and told him tb« mure w»t o:1 theran, injured on the ■ chest, nndTeque>»ed him to go and ft-tch \w% and 1 return her wb in he ti ok her from. Ec did not " bring her back to me. -My man went out n week after and got- her in. She remained in my - paddock nearly two days. I did not authorise £0f r Pilling to take her again. I did not know •she was taVen u second time till the Baturdav after. On the next day I saw. Messrs Pilling end ' "Wood «nd my horse in Mr Wood'o yard I went into the yard and lold Mr Pilling to return mv ' horse at once, that I had given. him no liberty to take her awsy. He said he would do<*o the* evening. He did not. Tbe hone was brought buck by my -son. Bbc was- fearfully datnnged, and her bind legs lacerated from tho Hank downwards, aedcut and hacked in other places. She was eompJetrly skinned. No authority wns given by me to Mr Pilling to take the horse. ' Wheß 1 firft spoke, to him in August he arranged ' to tome at once. I did not offer him £4 tobienk the mare but to -ride her after he had broken the horse. loathe Court :' I saw plaintiff between making the arrangement and his taking the mare. It • -was a week after ; he said he had not been for . the horse, I told him not to mind 'it then. Thomas Lyons deposed : I am a laborer in the • «mptoy of defendant. I remember Mr Pilling • coming for the filly to break it in. ' I told him 1 the horses' were -on 1 the run, 'trod asked did lie \ want the horse or the mare. He said, " I want C the mars called Cleo." I said, " That's the mare i ithe 1 giris ride." He said he was going to mouth l'her. I said, "I will go to the houre and see i if you • are to take her." I went to the ' home and told Mr Beere'e son someone'uad come for Cleo. I showed plninfifl where the mare was and- he caught it and took it away. 1 4old > defendant about it at-tbe* mill some time alter. 'He said 1 1 had done wrong to let the roar go wiffcaut his leave. I next saw the mare on ibe win and 1 brought her in. She had some • ofWhe hair taken off her chest. She remained in paddock a couple of days. 'Mr. filling came and fetched 'her away agaiu. I did . aotdeliver her to him. He took her himself. I nekt saw the «m*re -a fortnight after. Her legs were all skinned. She was badly skinned. 6he is not well -yet. Sho had 1 been very ill1 treated. I refused to take the 'mare. I told defendant's son who was 'with -me to tell plaintiff to bring the mare home himself. Mr. Pilling then delivered the mare to defendsnt's son who ' rod* her home without a saddle. The mare was a very quiet one before Mr. Pilling bad her. I have known and bandied her' for ten months —■•he never kicked or ' bit. Defendants children were in the habit of riding her for the lafct two years. She did not kick in the yard when Mr. Pilling and- myself first got ber in. She did not kick when he was on. I consider the nse plaintiff had in riding her sufficient, remuneration for his handling ber. Her only fault was that ane would jib. She w»s very .quiet, the smallest • child in defendant's bouse could go andcatchher in the middle of the- paddock. B. Beere was then • called. He said that he was eleven "years of- age. The court refused to allow witness to be sworn, his worship stating that he had a great objection to obildren being sworn. Mr. Hay quoted from the law of evidence to show that a certain discretionary power rested with the court as to the swearing after havingexamined the child as to the binding nature of an oath.', "After same discussion 'the court consented to examine the child. To the • Court ;i lam eleven years old. 1 can read and write, though not' well. -I attend Mr. Davis's school. I read the bible at school. I k have once had explained to me the nature of an oath. If I tell a He I shall go to another place. The 1 Court at once dtoided tbattbo boy should not be sworn. Counsel on « either >side having declined to Address ths Court, His -Worship, alter a few 'jniuutt-s consideration gave a verdict for ■ plaintiff for £4 tbe^ amount 'claimed, and costs. The • evidence, Kid ihtf-Court, waar very contradictory, -but the faot tfcat defendant did not immediately iS«nd for themars, wheu he lound it tuk«n away, fco'lhwr that- fie w»e a consenting party.