DISPUTE OVER A HORSE.

Gisborne Times, Volume LIX, Issue 9572, 25 July 1923, Page 6

DISPUTE OVER A HORSE.

CLAIM A-XI) COTN'i ER-GLAIAL Ail action lor the recovery of a. horse, or its value. £4O, and .£3O damages, was brought- by John Carron Ward (Mr J. S. Wane-hop) in the Alagistrato’s Court yesterday, before Air E. C. Levvcy, S.A!., against W. A. Stephens (Mr” 1,. T. Barnard). A counter-claim for £2O was made by defendant, being the price of a child’s pony, which it was alleged, plaintiff had contracted to procure, lor defendant’s child. The _ plaintiff, a farmer residing with liis father at Waerenga-a-hika, stated that he had Ifeon very friendly with the defendant from 191 7 ipi to the end of last hunting season. He had come into possession of the cream mare, the subject of the action, about Cebruary, 1918. The defendant followed the occupation of huntsman to the Poverty Bay Hunt Club, hut in 191.8 he was also breaking horses. r l he cream mare was by Kingston out of a cream mare which defendant used to ride. The mother was always an outlaw. The creamy was- about sir: years old when first handled by wit- J ness, he having run her in from the. ! paddock, and after defendant had mouthed her, wilnes,s had ridden her. The mare had fought hard and would not quiet down. The mare Imd given frequent exhibitions of bucking after this, both when defendant was riding her and when witness was doing so. Later, Stephens had said he would give the mare to wit- j ness, as it would never be ! suitable for a child to ride, witness j agreeing to secure a hack for de- I Pendant’s child. At that time, hacks j e very cheap, and a good one could have been bought for "from £5 I to £lO. From that time to April of: this year, witness had been in undisputed possession of the mare. Witness had never got the child’s pony, but defendant had procured one, which) witness broke in. It was claimed, however, by a Mr Hodge, who had paid him £-1 for breaking it in. Twc other ponies had been bought by delendant and broken in by witness, the arrangement being that he was tc break in the pony instead of buying one for the child. The cream marc had. developed very well, arid witness was so pleased with it that he had been content- to go on working for defendant, long after he felt the contract had been completed. He lmd looked after defendant’s 1 rounds for one period and had kept one hunter, Workman, all through one winter, hard feeding him. and schooling him for .pimping, lie and defendant had remained the closest friends until August of last year, when they had quarrelled over an account, incurred for the sending up of defendant’s sporting gun to Hazard’s in Auckland ior repairs, the amount being £2 Bs. In February of this year, defendant had spoken to him about the creamy, asking him to cither buy the horse

or buy a pony for his‘daughter. Witness had said' that, ho thought ho had oarnod th.o horse many times over. I hoy liar! spoken about tho matter several times afterwards, and once, after a quarrel Stephens had said that he would get the creamy if he had to steal it and turn it out in the hills. The tmr.se had been taken on the night of April l.'j of this year and witness had sent Stephens a solicitor's letter demanding its return. Tim letter had heeu returned, and on the hack was scribbled: “Try some other trick. Hop along;, (. -shay—Hu- 2(V’ Iho value ol tile lior.se at the time witness took her over would, at the. entsiuo, bo .£.'lo: now it was about £4O.

Edgar Ward, the- plaintiff’s father, residing at Wncrnnga-n-hika, said that Ids son liar! obtained t lie cream mare from Stephens in If) 1 .8, and had her ever since. If is son had done a great deal of work for Stephens. ]Ho was under the influence of Stephens, who exploited him most shamefully in getting work done for which there was no quid pro quo received. Hon aid Came run mint he regarded the horse as unreliable. She took IS months to break in. Stephens Lad intended the niaro for his daughter, but found her too unsafe, so he gave it to Ward, who was the only one who could' tide her. She followed the hounds frequently and became a pomi pamper. Albert R. Mine, '.dock agent for Williams and Kettle, said that Stephens had bet n working with the firm for the past seventeen years. He fan never •seen Stephens' equal for making a good jumper. Me was a first-class rider. Ward was not good at breaking in horses, and would net compare in this direction with defendant. The Jim; r j was very well-bred; he would not Lave parted with such a. horse for £so or £OO. A safe hunter for a child would be worth £2O to £IOO. He had o.rcn seen Ward ride the mare to the hunt. The mare was no good as a hunter til) Stephens regained possession of her. William Allan Stephens, the defendant, ' deposed that plaintiff Lad not broken in the mare. Ward was ;reated as one of the family. He had never kept his promise. to get a hunting pony for exchange with , the maim-. lo Mr. BurnarA: He had on frequent occasions lent young W T ard sums ot money. £2O would he a very moderate estimate of the amount. Albert Pritchard, elation manager, stated in eviclTnce that he had learned from conversations with Stephens and Ward that the mare was to be e.vhhanged for a hunting pony. The mare would Ire worth £4O or £SO mow. Stephens was as good a horse trainer as he ; had seem ,

] diaries Hindrup. teamster, gave evij deuce to the effect that he knew the mare in question. Ward had stated I that he was to get Stephens a hunter j for the mare. He had. at least on ; two occasions, seen defendant give money to plaintitr—once at the hotel and once at rite home of defendant. Patrick Joseph Semple, drover, also gave evidence. Tie had asked nlaintitf to sell him the mare, but plaintiff had replied that the mare belonged to defen •'ant. At that time, in 1{)13, the mare would he worth, about £-10 to £SO. Defendant was very good with horses, but plaintiff's work was very poor. John Hindrup. driver, said he had seen defendant give plaintiff money . n several occasions. Ward had told him the mare belonged to Stephens. His Worship said he was satisfied that the mare was not fully broken when plaintiff took her over: he was satisfied that defendant gave- the mare to plaintiff on condition that a hunting pony was given in exchange. Tie considered that the ma:e would: be worth about £lO at the time. Plaintiff did not. find a pony for Stephens, but claimed that he had done certain work for defendant in lien of payment. Plaintiff would get judgment for the return of the mare, with costs: judgment for defendant would he for £lO with costs. !

OTHER CIVIL BUSINESS. An order to pay forthwith a debt due for hoard, was sought by Doris Coeze against Conrad Hargreaves. Defendant said that he was earning only about £2 lO.s per week. Ho was a certificated engine-driver, but could not get work at his trade. He was a married man with three children and conid not pay anything out of what he was receiving. The plainj fi stated that defendunt’s wife had boon staying with her, and later defendant himself had come. She had run into debt in keeping them at her house.

His Worship said that defendant should make an effort to pay at least •Is per week, and the case would he adjourned for a month to see if he would pay up. H. J. Buckingham (Mr R. 18. Hill) proceeded under a judgment summons against George Hyde for the recovi cry of £l.l. due for rent. Defendant admitted haring promised to pay £8 off the. debt when judgment was obtained against him. but owing to an accident, which strained his heart, lie had boon unable to work. As a mat- | ter oi fact, ho had done no work for j three months after February 6. He j had eight children, the oldest of j whom was 13. He had not started I work until June .1, since when he had | been earning £3 per week keeping himself. I -Ur Mill: This man to whom you owe £ll is a returned soldier, with only one leg, is he not?—Yes, and a good thing for him, too. Mr Hill: A good thing that lie has only one leg?—Yes, he is making more now thair he could with | two.

Mr Hiil: Now, I put it to you that you are deliberately trying to beat this man for his money?—Nothing or the. kind. His Worship: It is not very satisfactory, but- I don’t see how I can make r.n order. An order for the payment of arrears for rent was sought by August Zcr.ker against John M. Owen. In answer to Mr J. Kinder, defendant said the judgment had been obtained against him in May of 1921, when there was £8 owing. 'Since then he hvd paid off about £2. His average earnings on the wharf were about £2 Id; per week, though at times lie earned as much as £7 10s per week. No order was made. P. !y. Sullivan was ordered to pay forthwith to lies and Dudfield the sum of £9 lGs, in default 9 days’ imprisonment. j