DISTRICT COURT.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume 6, Issue 336, 22 November 1862, Page 4

DISTRICT COURT.

Wednesday, Nov. 19. (Before John Curling, Esq., District Judge.) Maltby and anoflier v. IJuff (appeal case.) Mb. Caelyon, on behalf of the appellant, having giving notice of appeal in this case — in which judgment was given for the plaintiffs at the last sitting of the Court — made application to the Judge, under the 103 rd clause of the District Court Act, 1858, that, as Mr. Wilson, solicitor for the former plaintiffs, and himself could not agree to the terms of the case to be stated for the consideration of His Honor the Judge of the Supreme Court, he (the District Judge) would settle the case between them, and sign it according to the provisions of the before mentioned section. Stuart and another v. Alexander Allan. This was a claim of £87 3s lOd and costs £5 2s, adjourned from last sittings on account of the decease of the defendant. Judgment was given for £93 10s lOd, to take effect against the administrator, B. Taylor Esq. Touet v. Sourke. This was an action for £34 5s 6d for goods sold and delivered. Mr. Carlyon for plaintiff; Mr. Wilson for defendant. The plaintiff in this case was a creditor of defendant, who had assigned all his estate for the benefit of his creditors,. but the plaintiff did not sign the deed of assignment and now sued for his full amount. Judgment for plaintiff for the sum of £36 2s 9d, to be paid in twelve monthly instalments — 11 instalments of £3 each and the last of £3 2s 9d. Doitsh v. Danvers. Mr. Carlyon for plaintiff and Mr. Wilson for defendant. This was an action of trover. -14 appeared from the evidence that about April last plaintiff gave defendant a horse, for which he had given £26, to sell by auction. That the defendant, not finding ready sale for the horse, sent it, as was his custom, to run with other horses under his charge at the commonage at Havelock. That the defendant had a man in charge of them, and the horse in question was put with other ones, strange to the place, in a paddock hi the evenings, and let loose all the day. The horse, However, got astray about 3 months ago, and has not since been heard of, although search has been made for him ; and it has also been advertised. The plaintiff wanted the horse, and said if he had got him from defendant he could have sold him, and as defendant could not produce him or give any satisfactory account of him he brought this action. Mr. Carlyon, on behalf of the plaintiff, argued that an auctioneer was only relieved from liability for tMngs entrusted to his care in the case of fire, and not then if he had been told by the owner to insure them. That defendant had received the horse from plaintiff for sale and had failed to account for it, and that it was only just that plaintiff should either get his horse -or the value. If the defendant wished to be clear of liability he should have got an agreement signed without responsibility. Mr. Wilson, for defendant, argued that defendant had taken every reasonable care of the horse in question ; he had treated it in the same manner as he had his own and others entrusted to his care ; that if he had put the horse to livery it would very soon have cost plaintiff more than the animal was worth, and that was the only way in which he could have perfect control over it : that plaintiff had not shown any negligence in the matter," which was a necessary ingredient in an action of this kind, for if you sued a livery stable keeper at home for a horse which had met with an accident or met its death whilst in his care, you would have to -prove that negligence had been the cause before you could recover. In this case, every care which was reasonably to be expected had been used and he claimed a verdict for his client. Judgment reserved.

Thubsdat, November , 20. Polish v. Earners, _;■' The Court gave judgment in this case. ;- His Honor said that, in his opinion, in a case of this kind more regard must be had to the evidence as a whole than to a point of abstract law. He did not think there had been any proof of negligence against the defendant, and he should give judgment for the defendant, with costs £4 2s, The Court th^n : ad|purp.ed,