HORSE DEAL DISPUTE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19607, 8 April 1927, Page 14

HORSE DEAL DISPUTE.

FARMERS COME TO BLOWS.) —.— DUPLICITY OF A NEIGHBOUR. ! COURT PROCEEDINGS FOLLOW. [nr xJEixGiiArn.—own correspondent.] PUKEKOHE, Thuraday. Trouble which arose from an exchange of horses was ventilated in the Pukekohe Magistrate's Court yesterday. ■ D. Potter, farmer, of Puni (Mr. H. J. Wily) claimed ! from Raymond G. Holmes, farmer, Pani, and Stanley G. .Sycamore, farmer, Waiuku (Mr. J. S. Burt), £l7, as the value of a horse, £lO damages for its detention, and ; £2O damages for trespass, making a total of £47. Sycamore counter-claimed against Potter for £lO damages lor detention of a horse, £lO damages for assault, and £2 ' damages to fences, a total of £22. . The evidence of the plaintiff Potter was to the effect, that he bought a black mare at Pukekohe in February for £7 10s. B> intended to use it for farm work as one of his team, but found it kicked badly in chains. He offered it to Holmes, a neighbour, for use as a hack or gig horse. After, trying _ it, Holmes agreed to accept : it and give in exchange for it a gelding j named * Scout, a difference in the values to be made up by Potter, also giving I Holmes a fat pig and 7s in cash. Holmes said he had bought Scout from Sycamore, 1 who lived about 10 miles away. The exchange duly took place. However, on Sunday, March 27, continued plaintiff. Sycamore and Holmes took Scout out of his paddock and left the black mare there. Plaintiff demanded that Scout be returned to him. Sycamore refused. Words led to blows, Potter and Sycamore coming to grips, while Holmes threw stones at Potter. Plaintiff' then went off in the direction of Pukekohe, saying he would go for the police. He ; returned about an hour later and again ! demanded the horse, saying the police would take action next morning. Another ; scuffle between him and Sycamore 'ensued. Plaintiff then went home. The loss of the horse had delayed his ploughing work. Cross-examined, Potter said he pushed Sycamore away with the crank-handle of his car as hejeft. He did not strike him with it.. Sycamore first adopted a fighting attitude, but he, Potter, was first to land a blow. Evidence of the fighting was given by several witnesses. One said Sycamore seemed to strike first. • Potter lunged at him finally with the crank-handle. Sycamore gave evidence that on the way to Waiuku one day he.met Holmes driving the black mare in a gig's Holmes said this animal belonged to Potter, and that it kicked badly. He asked witness, as one who had successfully handled such horses, if he would endeavour to break it of the'habit. Witness agreed to try, and Holmes took it to his, Sycamore's, farm. He lent Holmes the horse Scout to drive home, telling him to return Scout in a day 'or two and not to let anyone else have him. However, Holmes came back three times without the horse, saying it was lame. Witness replied that he must have him to continue his team work, and, after about three weeks went for Scout himself, Holmes and he taking it from Potter's paddock. He had not authorised Holmes to sell or exchange Scout. In serving the summons for the present action on him, said Sycamore, Potter and his man had crossed his fences against his instructions, and the fences had been damaged. Holmes gave corroborative evidence. He admitted that he let Potter have Scout without Sycamore's authority. He had received* a solicitor's letter some considerable time ago, but did not know it warned him against going on Potter's property. He therefore did not consider that when he and Sycamore went into Potter's paddock to get Scout they were trespassing. •The magistrate,- Mr. ~J.. ,W-„ said from time immemorial, in the sale of an animal, particularly a horse, a good title must be given. He believed», Holmes exchanged Scout to Potter, without sufficient title, hoping Sycamore would keep the black mare in lieu of Scout. However" Sycamore did not do this. Potter had 'been deceived by Holmes' duplicity. The magistrate would therefore order Holmes to pay Potter £l7 as the value, of Scout, £5 damages through, loss of the horse, £1 damages for trespass, and £8 lis costs, a total of £3l lis. Sycamore would be ordered to pay Potter 5s damages for trespass, and costs, £3 lis Jd, while Potter would be ordered to pay Sycamore 10s and costs, £3 10s. 9d, for damaging Sycamore's fences when serving the summons „ ..... The magistrate added that the fighting was very regrettable, but he could not say which of the parties started it. He therefore could not allow the claims for damages for assault.,.