HASTINGS MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 7738, 18 April 1896, Page 3

HASTINGS MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

[own cobebspohdbnt.]

The following esses were disposed of after my report was despatched yesterday:— . J. H. Kirby v. J?. A. Herman, olaim £§b, sat off £50. At 3p m. yesterday Mr Jhee asked Mr Turnbull to name a special day for the conclusion oi this caso_, as in would bo naejeaa to re-commecce it that aftornooii —Mr Turabiill concurred, but said that he would return irons. V/airoa by the 29th inst., if the b&r permitted, ck if posflibla before. He supposed that a short notice would bs sufficient.-- Mr Soannell asked to hare a day fixed, or otherwise he could not get hie witnesses in time. —Adjourned to April 29th, awina Dawee v. K. W. B. Bousfield, claim £8 l«s' Me Sheath for plaintiff, Mr Boannell for defendtot. The circumstances of this case, which occupied tha Oourt neariy all the (ley, were »a follows :—Ou October 31st last Mrs B&wes bought a cowfrom Mr Bousfiald fop £§ ■ The cow oaUed on December 31st and proved jzsele.s-i tor milking parpoßes, her udder being defective, three out of the fcur teats being "blind. The plaintiff'H can* was that the defendant ? av© her a warranty that the cow was sound and quiet, and would yield nine pouude oi butter per week for six months. Moreover, it was contended on the part or plaintiff that the cow was to have calved in fourteen days, whereas it did not calve tor two months, She claimed £5 for the COW, 15s for veterinary treatiest> £1 f 8 f ° r . ke lof cow, and £1 16 for keep of ct.l*. l?ia£ntiff swore to the above agseoment. Mr fecsnaoll cross-examined at aema length. sVitne_ss admitted having had no experience iv keeping,cows, atid that after the orohard &nd other CEltiratioas, only 2 roods 39 peroh'ei) would remaiii far the cow and two horses.—T. W. Dawes gave corroborative evidenoe, but addel that the original bargain was £6, but at hie (witness's re- : quest) Bousfield Kedaced the amount to £5, for which witness took c receipt.— li'red Cook, Dairy Inspector, had inspected the cow, as it had been reported diseased Found it quite healthy bodily, but only one of the teats would act, Diseasod udder pfteu occurred after oalving, but it did not make the meat unhealthy.—Alfred Danvere, veterinary surgeon, gave export evidenoe. It appeared toWc- been a good milch cow at one time. Would be worth as it was to a butcher £3 10s three mouths after calving. —Michael Beffgley, Joseph (Joe, Jainee Rus'oil, and Benjamin Joil, also gave evidence for the pMntitf.—Mr Soannel claimed a nonsuit, on the following grounds:—l That there being a written document roluting to the transaction, no oral testimony could be evidenoe us to matters outside the document (Uoscoe, -Page 41). 2. Thtit the olaim should be a claim for damages, and not a olaim lor the value of the cow (Kohcgo, Page 443). 3. 'JThat as BouefieW, at the irietfitice of plaintiff* husband, obtained tha cow foe £5 instead of £G, it bocaine a irenh bargain altogether —After a long argument, Mr Turnbnll said that ho should have to nonsuit the pluintiiE upon the ground that (iral testimony could not bo received upou what was absent from thu document. He was alao of .pinion that the arrangement by plaintiff's husband, made it quite another transaction.—Nonsuited, with costs o! Ooapt 6s, witnesses £1 15» } solicitor 21s.

T. H. Stowart v Boru, judg&aent cumBionß, claim JB4 lln; to be paid fortuwith or o&o ■wask'fl imprisonment.