SALE OF HORSE

Grey River Argus, 15 May 1945, Page 2

SALE OF HORSE

I CLAIM HEARD AT GREYMOUTH

In the Magistrate’s Court at GJeymouth yesterday, Mr. A. A. McLachlan, S.M.. heard a claim by Clifford O’Leary, bushman, of Totara Flat (Mr. J. W. Hannan), against William Maloney, bushman, ot Blackball (Mr. W. D. Taylor), for £3O, being the sale price of one horse with collar, hames, and cover, which it was alleged had been sold and delivered by plaintiff to defendant on November 10, 1944; also £2 3s 6d, being grazing costs from November 24 to March 22, and such further sum for grazing as might become due from March 22 to the date of judgment. In a counterclaim defendant stated that it was a condition of sale (if there was a sale, which defendant denied) that the horse should be a good snig horse. The purpose for which defendant required the horse had been disclosed to plaintiff before the alleged sale. If the representation that the horse was a good snig horse amounted only to a warranty there was a breach of such warranty. The horse, it was alleged, was not a good snig horse, and defendant was therefore entitled to counter-claim an amount equal to that claimed by plaintiff. Plaintiff in evidence said that defendant had first shown interest in the horse when plaintiff had it on the road during a trip to the blacksmith. Three or four weeks before the sale he met defendant in Mackay Street and told him the price of the horse. Defendant asked him to keep it for him. He had previously told defendant that the horse had worked satisfactorily for him as a snig horse for about IS months. Defendant look' delivery of the horse on November 9 and a week later, when a telephone enquiry was made about payment, said he would send a cheque right away. At the Ahaura sports on December 9, defendant told him the horse would not work, plaintiff saying that so far as he was concerned the horse was defendant’s property. Later the horse was left in his paddock overnight and the harness was dropped over the. gate. When the horse was returned it was practically a cripple and had been hit on the head with an axe. Only one shoe was left on.

To Mr. Taylor: He told defendant the horse would do anything plaiiitiff asked it to do in the bush. Fie had told defendant, it was a good snig horse. Defendant did not say when he examined it that he would take the horse on trial and did not say later h e would send a cheque when he had tried it. The horse was not sold on trial. To Mr. Hannan: Defendant knew that he was snigging sleepers and fencing posts. A. Jefferies, bushman, said he knew the horse and would call it a good snig horse. Fie would expect it to pull five 18-foot bars without any trouble. William Tomlinson said he had seen the horse snigging and looked on it as an average good snig horse. He gave corroborative evidence regarding the state of the horse when it was returned to plaintiff. CASE FOR DEFENCE Mr. Tayfior Sfaidi the defence contended that the horse had been taken on trial and that if defendant was not satisfied with it he had the right to return it. It was a condition that it should be suitable for mining timber. Defendant in evidence said he had had considerable experience with horses. Fie told plaintiff when he met him in Mackay Street that he would be wanting a horse for mining timber and would have a look at his. Plaintiff had said it was a first-class snig horse. No price was mentioned. Later he and Mr Ferry, who worked with him. went to see the horse. It was not working that day.... Plaintiff said he wanted £3O for it. Defendant said he would take the horse and “.give it a go”. A Mr McDonald finally went and got the horse. It broke out, and was away for several days, and when it was tried out in the bush they had trouble in making him null four bars, though their own snig horses took eight or nine. They tried him out three times. Defendant tried to get in touch with plaintiff, but he was away. He arranged for Mr McDonald to take the horse back, but he was held up because of the state of the river. When plaintiff rang him, defendant told him he had not tried the horse, as it had escaped, but that if it was all right he would send a cheque. When he met plaintiff at the Ahaura sports he told him that the horse was no good and that it had been put back the day before. Fie would not describe the horse as a good snig horse. To Mr Hannan; The horse was in first-class condition when it left his paddock three days before it was returned to plaintiff. It had one shoe Off/

To the Magistrate: He could have sent plaintiff a letter saying he was not taking the horse. The horse was sold tc ; him as a six-year-old, and he considered it was a ten-year-old. Robert Ferry, bushman, gave corroborative evidence regarding the inspection of the horse and its subsequent trial. The horse was in good condition when he last saw it before its return to plaintiff, and had been kept on hard feed. Thomas Henry McDonald, miner, said that when he took delivery of the horse he put it in a paddock at his bach, and: it was gone next morning. He also returned the horse. It had one shoe off when he got it from Maloney and shed another while he had it in his paddock waiting for the flood to go down. It took about half a day, to catch the horse the dav he left. He saw no scar such as olaintiff had described.

Commenting on witness’s evidence that when he first took delivery of the horse he put it in a paddock with two other horses, the Magistrate said that the horse might have resented this action, and expected some act of friendliness, such as a handful of feed. He thought it was a fairly common experience that a horse which would work for one man might not .vork for 'another. The. Magistrate said that .on the evidence in what, was an unsatisfactory case, he thought there had been a warranty. It. seemed doubtful whether the horse was a .first-class snig horse, but that did not give defendant the right to repudiate a contract. The difficult.y was about the price, and lie thought lie' would leave it to counsel to decide on a fair price for the horse. The case would be adjourned till next Court day. Costs according to agreement would be allowed, but no witnesses’ expenses.