Dispute over a Horse.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume IV, Issue 570, 14 February 1891, Page 2

Dispute over a Horse.

At the R.M. Court yesterday, Michael Mullooly sued Richard Finlay for £l5, or the return of a certain horse.

Mr Chrisp appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Nolan for defendant. Mr Nolau admitted that the horse was branded with Mr Mullooly’s registered brand. The plaintiff deposed that the horse in dispute was a dark bay gelding which had been bred by him, aud was his property. He had not sold it nor given Mr Finlay the right to take it away. Mr Finlay and he had a dispute as to the ownership of the horse, and they then agreed, to prevent going to law, that if it was a two-year-old Mr Finlay was to have it, and if a four year-old plaintiff was to have it. They were to leave tho matter to two arbitrators, two decent men, not larrikins of the town. Ha had ouh.eq«ontly Mi Mattheweon, but Mr Finlay would not agree to that. To Mr Nolan: Did not know how many horses ho might have—he might have 100, 150 or 50. He branded most of his horses. He never knowingly branded any other person’s horse. He remembered never having branded any of Mr Loisel’s horses. It had been proved in that Court that he had not. He had sold Mr Finlay several horses, but not the one now in dispute. Did not remember having taken a horse out of Mr Finlay's cart in Tologa Bay and subsequently having to pay £l2 expenses to Mr Finlay. He did not remember ever before having a law suit with Mr Finlay over a horse, lie never gave an order to Mr Einlay for a bay colt. The order (produced) about a bay colt was given by him. Mr Finlay told him that was destroyed—that paper was a swindle. I Witness then related that he had signed the order without any explanation because a native was in distress about a horse, and Mr Finlay said he wanted to buy it.J He told Mr Finlay to tear up the order, as it was not worth ths paper it was written on, Tha horse tljat referred to wad there and the natives would give it to himTo Mr Chrisp; Tha sole truth was that he was on ths '■ boosse" when he signed the order—well, he wasn't sober. It was in Finlay’s hand writing. He got no consideration—in fact Finlay would not give him a glass of grog, and threatened to turn hjm out. Finlay had told him that the horse he spoke about was a mare and the order was not worth the paper written on, He asked Finlay for no consideration—he just walked into the place and out again. A large number of witnesses were then called. Mr Nigel Wyllie had seen the horse branded at Mr M ullqely’s, among whose horses it had been innning for the past ill years—it was between three and four years ol

age. Mr Finlay, defendant, deposed he had bought the moiher of the mare from Mr Mullooly, and the colt was foaled after purchase. Mullooly a few weeks ago said the Maoris had told him there was a mare of Finlay’s at Mokirau; he replied he had no mare, but a oolt, there, and knowing from previous experience that Mr Mullooly might be troublesome, he asked for an order giving permission to get the horse, and plaintiff signed it—plaintiff had a few glassee cf drink about that time. Mr Matthewson, veterinary surgeon, thought the horse had been born in December, 1887. A number of other witnesses were called ; they had long known the horse, and believed it to be Finlay's. His Worship said the balance of evidence was in favor of defendant, and he gave a nonsuit, with £6 15s costs.