SEQUEL TO A “BOLT.”

Gisborne Times, Volume LV, Issue 6203, 7 October 1921, Page 2

SEQUEL TO A “BOLT.”

WAS THERE NEGLIGENCE? COURT DISMISSES .CASE. The major portion of the time of the Magistrate's ’ Court yesterday was occupied in the hearing, before Mr J. S. Barton, S.M., of a case in which Arthur Clyde Langford, livery stable proprietor, sued Norman Marlow and Robert Button for £3d 17s, being the amount of damage caused to a gig and mare of the plaintiff's while hired- by defendants. Mr B. B. Hill appeared for defendants and Mr T. Coleman for plaintiffs. Mr Coleman disputed the right of Robert Button to be joined as the second defendant, as he had not given due notice of his intention to defend the case. After hearing brief legal argument. His Worship agreed to allow the case to proceed, Marlow and Robert Button being joined as defendants. Mr Coleman outlined the circumstances of the case as to defendants hiring the gig and mare from Langford's, and the subsequent bolting of the animal and damaging of the vehicle. The horse, he stated, had previously been worth £35, and was now practically useless. Reginald Cooper, groom at plaintiff's stables, said that Marlow had come in and asked the price of a gig for half a day. He told him 12s 6d. Marlow said that was too much, and asked the other groom for a quote, receiving the same figure. Later word came °from Mr Langford that defendants were to be given a boi-se. Witness then got the mare "Trixie” ready, as Marlow specially asked for her. Witness went to dinner and left them, at the stable. He next saw defendants about G. 15 p.m., when Button brought the gig in and lie asked him where the mare was. It was dark when the gig was pushed into the shed, and lie° did not then examine it. Marlow brought the mare iu badly cut about the knees and body. Marlow said lie nad been going into a "bach" to give her a feed when the mare got away from him. When the defendant, Marlow, led the injured mare in, she was sweating. The mare had since had the wounds dressed and attended _ to. When witness switched on the light and looked at the gig lie found ' it considerably damaged. Witness bad been used to horses practically all his life and had been at the stables for four or five years. He had had personal experience with the mare, which was quiet when not frightened. She was safe and . quiet to drive, but excitable, and could not be left. In answer to farther questioning by Mr Coleman, witness said he did not notice Button's condition, but Marlow was under the influence of liquor. He could tell this by the way he was talking such a lot .of "rot.” Cross-examined by Mr Hill, witness said there were other suitable horses in, the stable at the time defendant hired '"Trixie." There were two other good horses there, though one of them, "Saturday,” was not quiet. Marlow had said he wanted "Trixie.” Witness could not be sure who had put the mare m the trap, as at the time lie was away at dinner. Marlow was excited when he came in as lie had been in the smash-up. Marlow offered to wash down the mare, but witness would not let him.

Mr Hill: You say he was talking a lot of rot? Witness: Yes. He was saying he wished he had not taken the horse. Mr Hill: Well, is that not reasonable seeing he had had a smash-up ? W hat proof have you that Marlow was drunk ?

Witness: Well, the way he said it

In reply to Mr Hill, witness assented that the mare had bolted twice before.

To His Worship, witness said Marlow had been given no warning about the mare when he took her out, but should have known all about her,, as he had worked in a stable. Fre'deriek Valentine, veterinary surgeon, gave evidence as to having examined the mare Trixie after the accident, and detailed her injuries and their effects. When he examined her the mare was sweating and was very excited,, and had not been hosed down. Witness had known the mart, Trixie, for two years. She was quiet, hut oould not be left standing on the road. Prior to the smash he would have valued her at £35. Her present value, at the outside, was £9, but lie would not like to say what her value would be in the future. The mare was uow fit for breeding but would never be fit for show purposes again. When lie saw Marlow at the stables, the defendant appeared to have had a few beers, but he could not. say he was drunk. His Worship; You must be a Sherlock Holmes to know what he had had. Might it not have been whisky? Frank Button, taxi driver, said he saw the turnout at Makaraka with the reins tied to the wheel. Defendants were in the bar but they seemed to be all right. Neither of the defendants were at ’nis bach in Disraeli Stieet that afternoon. Witness had driven the mare in question and had broken in young horses with her. The mare was quiet to drive but could not be left alone. When he saw the mare after the smash she did not seem to be too badly cut about. To Mr Hill: Defendants did not appear to he drunk. He would not expect the mare to bolt unless left alone. In reply to the Magistrate, witness gaid he was at the Makaraka Hotel for about five minutes. Constable Gribben deposed that he .knew the mare, Trixie, well, and had driven her a good few times. The jnare was quiet to drive but could not be left standing without the wheeL tied. He valued the mare before the pccident - at from £3O to £4O. He would ( say the injuries would depreciate her value considerably. Constable James ]3rown said that on ,the day of the accident, in reply to a. telephone message, he went round to the stables and saw the mare, which was very much damaged. John Riddell, a book-keeper in the employ of Messrs Williams, and Kettle, gave evidence as to having witnessed the accident. The horse and gig. came down Palmerston Road and overturned when turning the corner to go up Bright Street. There was no one in the gig at the time. The mare struggled up and out of the harness. At the time Marlow was very excited and loud spoken. The plaintiff, Arthur Clyde Langford, stable proprietor, said that neither of the defendants had spoken to him oni the day of the accident, but Bob Buttons had sent a message stating that he wanted a gig to go out beyond Makaraka. Subsequently ho found they had taken "Trixie.” He had plenty of other suitable horses. "Trixie.” was about eight years old and wellbred, and had taken the first prize two years running at the Gisborne Show. Prior to the accident the mare had .been worth about £35. to him, though he had refused an offer for the mare of that amount. "Trixie” was now .ruined for livery stable work and Show purposes and was now worth .about £5. The mare was quiet, hut could not be left standing. Marlow knew the mare, as he; had beeii in the employ of witness. Repairs to the gig were not yet finished, but were .estimated at £4 ss. Defendants had not paid for the hire of the gig. To Mr Hill: Witness booked accounts, but had not yet billed Marlow for the hire of the turn-out for the afternoon. The horse had never bolted at the Park racecourse, but once got a fright and reared up, lifting the spring off the axle. The mare had bolted oil September 2, but would not .bolt unless left alone. Witness assented that the case hinged on proof of the fact that the horse had been left alone. The horse, had been over-

driven and was sweating badly. This could not have been caused by the short distance the mare had bolted. Mr Hill said he would show that defendants had not specially asked for "Trixie,” and the horse had bolted as Marlow was getting a bag of feed. As a matter of law, the defendants were bailees. They were to exercise ordinary care —the same'care as if the horse were their own. There had been a .tremendous amount of evidence, but .none as to how the accident occurred, and no proof of negligence had been advanced. There was only a weak suggestion that the defendants had been drunk. The evidence 60 far was just as consistent with an accident as anything else. The Magistrate said there was a duty on the bailee to exercise ordinary cafe.

Norman, Marlow, labourer, and one of the defendants in the action, deposed that he had had a lifelong experience of horses. Witness detailed .the circumstances, of hiring the turnout and the journey to Makaraka and back. They drove back to Grey Street and Buttons and Johnson) got out. Witness remained in the gig and as he was reaching for a' nose-bag of feed the horse bolted. Witness made a grab at the reins, but they were short, and he missed them. He reached over the crupper, but was thrown and dragged 50 or 60 yards in Palmerston Road. He followed up the gig, and when they had released the mare from the harness she kicked the front of the gig. He took the mare to the stables and told those in charge that the .horse had run away and nearly 'killed wltnesßi. Witn&sgi wanted to htasle down the horse, but the groom said .“Leave her alone; we'll fix her up.” To Mr Hill, witness said he had had three light shandies that day. This was In the space of three or four hours.

Witness, ini reply to the Magistrate, said it was about dusk when the mare bolted.

Cross-examined by Mr Coleman, Marlow said Button and 'Johnson followed up the gig and went to the stables. Witness did not.have to turn round to pull out the bag of chaff, but reached for it with his.left hand, continuing to race the horse. Witness had heard a lot about the mare, Trixie.’ and when he was in the employ of Langford had always been told that "Trixie" was to be the last mare let out. She was only let to experienced drivers.

Mr Coleman: Grabbing the crupper would not stop her! Witness: If I had got the reins I would have. The mare was a racehorse in harness.

To Mr Hill: Witness had seen wheellocks fitted to a gig when hired out with "Trixie." The horse had formerly been worth about £ls, and was not worth much less now. If they thought the mare was worth only £5 now, he could find a buyer at £lO. Robert Button, the second defendant, said that after enquiring the price of hire at the stable he communicated with Langford and got the turnout at 7s 6d for the afternoon. Corroborative evidence was given as to the trip to Makaraka and the bolting from .Grey JStreet. The horse was very "frisky” and liable to bolt at any time, but he did not know this until after the accident.

To Mr Coleman: The mare stood quiet until Marlow went to get the chaff. The mare played-up a little, hit during the afternoon, hut nothing to complain about. Walter Johnson, a labourer, said he joined the gig in Grey Street before going to Matawhero. When they got back to Grey Street Buttons and .witness got out and the mare bolted when Marlow went to get the feed out of the trap. Marlow had to stoop down to get the chaff, which he handed out of the gig, and he was about to get out of the gig when the horse took off. ■

MrColeman: How was Marlow getting out of the gig; any way? Witness: No. The right way. Mr Coleman: I suppose the mare started off at a trot. Witness: No. A bullet out of a gun would not have raced her. Mr Coleinau: What, then, do you think caused the mare to bolt? Witness: Well. I don't know. i suppose it was an act of God.

Marlow, stated witness, had only used one hand to pull out the chaff. His Worship said the case hinged on the proof of negligence. The suggestion that defendants were drunk ivas not proved at ail, and the character of the horse and its previous record had to be taken into account. It had bolted several times previously and it was unanimously “agreed to be of an excitable nature. Taking everything j into consideration, he thought negligence had not been proved, and plaintiff's ease must therefore fail.