HORSE AND TRAIN.

Mataura Ensign, 21 May 1910, Page 2

HORSE AND TRAIN.

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

JUDGMENT RESERVED. At the Gore" Magistrate's Court on Thursday, before Mr H. A. Young, S.M., the case James Lawson (Mr Bowler) v. the Minister for Railways (Mr Macalister), claim £ls for damage to a horse while being conveyed by the Railway Department from McNab Siding to the" Invercargill show in December last, was .heard. Mr Bowler, in opening the case, said there was some, shunting of the trai i at a station beyond Woodlands. Af!;.>•■ the engine had shunted it started bac< again to the train. In starting th:> train through negligence of those i charge jerked the draw-bar out of th" horse waggon, and owing to the concu* sion that ensued the partition in the box was smashed in on the horse, w'j!.»h was knocked down and injured. T!,%? horse was examined by a veterinary sur geon at Invercargill and the evidence <i this expert would be forthcoming. The horse was worth from £IOO to £2OO, fcut owing to the law the plaintiff could'only claim for £ls. James Lawson, the plaintiff, gave evidence to the effect that the horse was worth £IOO. He consigned the hors--: nz McNab Siding to tlie Invercargi\ Sh .w on December 14. He gave evidence in support of counsel's opening statement. Witness said when he reached Invercargill he told the stationmaster what had happened and asked should they have the horse examined by a veterinary surgeon. The horse was well bred anj its ancestors' stock were frequently prizetakers. Witness bought the horse as a yearling for a little over £3O. The Railway Department did not send a veterinary surgeon, as promised, to examine the horse. Witness could not now sell his horse as a sound one. Although he claimed £ls £6O would not recompense him. To Mr Macalister: The horse was now useless as a stallion. [The certificate of Mr Reah of December 17 was here put i r stating that the horse was injured and badly shaken.] Owing to the jolting of the train the over-bar of the truck was smashed. Witness jumped out of the train as he thought the train was ou the line. He asked the guard to come and see the horse. At the next station the guard asked witness how he was getting on, and witness replied not very well. The horse was down and witness said he was afraid he would never bo able to stand up. The guard then came in and helped to fix things up. When witness got to Invercargill he got the horse out and walked him away. When in the truck the horse was down and portion of the partition between the jockey's portion and t]ie box proper fell on the horse. To the Court: He took the horse up to the show ground. The judge looked at him, but he got no prize. The horse was stiff and sore all over. Alfred Reah, veterinary surgeon, deposed to examing the horse at the Invercargill Show. He found his back and hocks hurt. The horse's back was seriously injured. The injury was a, permanent one and made the horse useless for the purpose for which it was kept. Before the injury the horse was worth £l5O. He was practically valueless now. To Mr Macalister: He had not seen the horse since December last and could not say what his condition was now. He might have been able to give a different opinion as to its present condition if he examined it now. This was plaintiff's case. Mr Macalister said the Department, was quite prepared when they were satisfied to injuries caused by negligence to meet the parties who thus suffered. In this case, however, the Department were not satisfied. The horse was taken out of the truck and ex hibited at the show and- got no It was ridiculous to think that a man would exhibit a horse if he could scarcely walk. With regard to the facts Tinsel said it was quite common for ks to break on long goods trains, "uards of goods trains always carL ra hooks in their vans in case Where the Westinghouse used it was possible that I "Teak in long goods trains. ' fy the court on that There was no evi- ■ the breaking of r \ "d not show neglibe broken 'here was no '"*er, said vears.

short trains. It was at the One Point station that Lawson pointed out that the door of the horse box was off its hinges and lying against the horse. Witness fixed the door on again. Lawson said Ins horse was knocked down and injured. He also said the dour was lying on the horse, but witn.-is could not see anything of the kind. The horse was standing up. Cross-examinad: The horse was taken out at Invercargill at 8 o'clock in the evening. He would not swear whether it was before or after he put on the extra draw hook that he wait into he horse box. He went in as soon as Lawson spoke to him. He did not notice anything wrong with the partition in the box at Longbush. To the Court: There were passengers on the train, and no one complained. The hinges of the door were not broken. This was the case for the defence. Mr Macalister, addressing the Court, contended that there was no evidence of negligence, and the case should ha dismissed. It had been proved in evidence that these hooks sometimes broke without suspicion of negligence on tlw part of those engaged in the work. The claim was not a bona fide one. Counsel argued at length on the Department s liability as common carriers when negligence was not proved; secondly that Lawson had not declared the goods "special goods" and paid th«. extra rate, viz., one-sixth higher than ordinary; further, Lawson, in not declaring the value of the horse, took thnsk himself and the Department was not liable as common carriers. If Lawson had paid the one-sixth extra rate and declared his goods "special good's ' fiien he could claim up to the value of £ls, as the goods would then have been insured as special goods. The contract freed defendant from liability where negligence was not shown. He submitted that judgment ought to be for defendant.

Mr Bowler, in reply, said the Department had had every opportunity tinspect the horse at Invercargill stament had had every opportunity to have it inspected, but the Department did not do so. The correspondence showed that the Department had been delaying proceedings ever since. The plaintiff had suffered damage and the value of the horse had been lessened. He_ paid £3O for it and now sued for £ls. He quoted authorities to show, what was meant by negligence. The defendant's employees made up long trains and in so doing caused the brakes to work imperfectly, with the result that all the brakes are not efficiently controlled. Surely that was negligonce. The driver had also admitted that the brakes were not working particularly well after leaving Gore, yet the fcain was being added to. There was ample proof of negligence. He had also looked carefully into the by-laws, and he could see no provision for exempting any goods. There was reference to special goods, but there was nothing to limit the Minister's liability as a common carrier. Judgment was deserved till next Court day.