Supreme Court Judgment.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 8153, 31 March 1906, Page 5

Supreme Court Judgment.

A Horse Sale.

At the Courthouse this morning Mr A. D. Thompson, S.M., read the reserved judgement of his Honor ( the Chief Justice in the appeal case Cuff Bros. (Mr Trewin) v. J. A. Smith (Mr P. Baldwin).

The case was an appeal from a decision of the S.M. at Palmerston North, and, in the opinion of the judge, raised a very important point. The facts of the case were that appellants owned a horse which they understood was only four years old, and which they placed in the hands of a local auctioneering firm for sale. The respondent, who bought the animal, did not examine it As to age, but if he had done so he would have found that it was not a four-year-old gelding at all, and that, on |the contrary, that it was five years old and rising six. The respondent took delivery and conveyed the animal by train to Woodville. Two days after the sale he discovered that his purchase was five years old and then communicated with the auctioneers, stating he would not keep the horse but would return it at once. When the animal was received, back the auctioneers declined to allow recision of the contract, but disclosed to respondent the names of their principals. Appellants were then communicated with but declined, to accept re-delivery of the horse or to return the purchase money. An action was then commenced in the S.M. Court for the price of the horse, it being decided by the Magistrate that the respondent had a right to rescind the contract and therefore he gave judgment for the amount claimed. The question was as to whether the decision was right in point of law. After citing numerous cases and authorities his Honor said he thought the proper course to pursue was to send the case back to the Magistrate so that he may give what damages he thinks proper for the breach of warranty, which he held had occurred on the part of the appellants. It was clear that respondent was, at all events, entitled to nominal damages. He therefore allowed the appeal and remitted the case back to the S.M. for further consideration. As to costs appellant was allowed £3 3s only,!as his careless [representation (so his Honor said) as to age had led to the lawsuit.