THE DALMUIR-UP-TO DATE DEAL.

Clutha Leader, Volume XXXVI, Issue 49, 30 November 1909, Page 5

THE DALMUIR-UP-TO DATE DEAL.

—4 VEUDICT FOR. .lil2o DAMAGES

Fie action, in which Thomas SinHair, o'i ISalclutha, sought to recover from William Freeman, of Vninnite, £|2oo damages, was concluded in the Supreme Court, Dunedin, on Friday when judgment w as given for plaintiff for X' 120.

His Honor in summing up pointed out that il was necessary for the jury to 'decide whether I lie stallion Up-to-date was unsound, and if so whether he was unsound at the time the exchange was made. His Ifonor went, briefly into the evidence, pointing out thai (he horse was not sold under a guarantee lo only with a cert ideate. I here was nothing, to show, or (<> lead one to suspect, ihat this certificate was not bona lide. Sooner than keep the horse O'Moil was prepared to lose £(!7 10/ to get rid of him. ]t was clear that he suspected unsoundness. He was also prepared to exchange it for even money for a horse with CIOO. This seemed to show that there was on his part great, doubts as to the unsoundness of the horse. His Honor also dealt with the technical evidence given touching stringhalt and shivring. Two experienced witnesses had pronounced the horse sound. As a matter of fact, a man was not legally bound in a horse deal—whether he was morally bound was another thing:—to disclose all ihe favts of the case, and the purchaser had no remedy if afterwards the horse turned out to be unsound. To establish warranty it was necessary to make it clear that expressions were used, by the seller from which they might draw an inference that such was the intention of the parties to the contract. This, of course, was a most important thing in a horse transaction. Sinclair was accustomed to dealing in horsea. They must consider the question of the existence, or'non-existence, of the guarantee as being of very great importance. Tn order to have made misrepresentation it must be proved, not only Ihat things stated as facts by the principal were untrue, but that he was aware at the time they were untrue. His Honor put the following questions to the jury

]. Was the horse unsound at the time tho exchange was made ? 2. Was tho horse jrunrantew] sound ? 3. Bid Dalgleixh (who mado the exchange with Sinclair, on behalf of I<Ycoman) fraudulently represent to Sinclair that the horse was sound ?

If No. (1) is found in the affirmative and (2) or (3), or both of them, are found in the affirmative, what damages is tho plaintiff entitled to recover. The iury answered' in the ullinnative in each case, and, there, Ircing an affirmative in questions l (1) and (2), plaintiff was entitled to recover £l2O. Witnesses' expenses aro to bo fixed by the Registrar, and costs (nine i/uineos) for two und a-lial! extra 'days were &Uo\wt