RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 3250, 6 July 1872, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Piuday, sth July. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.)

Knott v. D'inkerley.—Claim for £44 15s Bd. Mr Harris for plaintiff. The full amount of the claim, whioh was based on a dishonoured acceptance, was awarded to the plaintiff, together with costs. Thomson and Barclay v. Pritchard.—Claim for £4. r), on account of the alleged wrongful detention of a horse. Mr E. Cook for plaintiffs ; Mr Stout for defendant.

John Hiirday, one of the plaintiffs, said he was in partnership as ahorse dealer and carter with Thomson, the other plaintiff, lie was still in partnership with him. Became possessed of the horse in question in May, 1871. Lent it to the late John Jsodhrun about a fortnight or three weeks afterwards to uhu in his business as a carrier. Rodham said he wanted the animal to supply the place of another horse taken away by another man. No mention was mxdc about payment for the loan of the horse when it was leut. Ultimately plaintiff told Aitken that he required the horse to be returned. Ait ken was manager for Rodham. I'laintiff w.'is then informed that ho would break up v team of horses by taking the horse away, but that he (plaintiff) would be compensated for the services of the horse. At Aitken's request plaintiff did not take possession of the horse. f>> ever agreed to sell the horse to Kodham. Subsequently, on the 10tJi 'June, plaintiff and Ins partner met dofend-mt in George street, when defendant told him that he had bought Rod'hum's trains, including the horse claimed by plaintiif. Defendant admitted that Rodham showed no authority for selling the horse, but lie refused to give plaintiff possession. 'The hnr->j was worth £'10 ; plaintiff paid £38 10.H for the horuu.

Cross-examined: Plaintiff considered he had ;i <!.">iin for hire after he spoke to Aitkcn. Had n<»i'!:iim against Rodham except for the hor.-io. S!i>u!d think he had a claim against Aitken for hire. Never aaid )ic lent the horse to AitLou. Had had no transactions with Kodharn since the horse was lent, neither had ho asked Aitken for money on Kodham's account. Was in the habit of ieixlin^ hordes, and charging nothing for hire. I'laintiJT believed he had previously said at jNV.aeby, " I don't think I have had any transae ions with Jlodham since April last." Never asked .Rodham or Aitken for payment of the liorao. John Thomson, one of the plaintiffs, corroborated tho evidence of hi« partner. Cross-examined : Did not tc-31 Pritchard that " Jlodham had had the horse, and never paid for it." William Ailkeu, who had been manager for Rodham, stated that while Rodham was in Melbourne, plaintiffs applied to witness for tho horse, when he asked Barclay to let tho horse remain, and ho would'give an equivalent for tho work of the animal- Witness simply spoke at the time as agent and manager for Bodham. Kodbain did not tell witness that he had borrowed tho horse. Thomas Tomlinson stated that he lent

Rodham a horse, which he had for more than a year ; there wa» no stipulation about hire. The hoise wail lent merely as.an act of friendship, llanen were sometimes lent by one person merely to oblige another. After witness had been cross-examined, Mr .Stout BsirJ the case for the defendant W!« that he bought the hone from Rodham, J>elievin# that the animal was Rodham's property, defendant having seen it working in Rodham1» team for twelve months previous!}'.-' The vale., he contended, wan of such a character as to precladc plaintiffs from recovering. They allowed a man to have possession of their property,, and to treat with other persona. The plaintiffi* therefore had themadves to blame!.

Defendant, in hi* evidence, stated that he purchased, ami got delivery of, the horse from Rodham. The horse wad worth £18 or £19. The highest bid at the sale yards was £17 10». The home was about 14 years old. He sent th« horae to the Hale yards merely to ascertain ite value. Had there been no dispute defendant would have sold the horeo for £17 10m. On the 10th or I Jth June, Thomson, in 'Barclay's presence, asked defendant to give the horse up without any bother, adding, that if he did not do ho he (Thomson) would sue him for it. TlioniHon further stated that he did not want to take legal proceedings, because the action would coat more than the horse was worth. Defendant replied that he did not look at the matter from a pecuniary point of view, but solely an a matter of principle ; and added that if plaintiffs had a legal claim to the horse, they ought to get possession of ifc, but not otherwise. Defendant also told the plaintiffs that he did not a»k Rodham to produce his authority to 8011, because he would not think of asking'any respectable man for his authority. Hail he asked Rodham for his authority to sell this particular horse, he must nccessanly have asked for his authority to sell the whole team. •Samuel Moody, who had also been in Rod.-, ham's employ as waggoner, stated that the hor.se now claimed was in his team ten months ago. Had heard the plaintiffs talking with Rodham, and saw money pass between them, shortly before Rodham went to Melbourne. Cross-examined : It was two months after the chestnut horse was sold that witness saw money pass. Defendant, re-called, said that Bnaz Crawshaw, who waa a material witness for the defence, had told him that, being a friend of plaintiffs', he would not conn* to Court. Defendant took a note of what Crawabaw said at the time, in the presence of two .witnesses. Ah Crawshaw's evidence, therefore, waa considered material to the defendant's case, Mr Stout asked, for an adjournment. Mr Cook said he wished to state that the plniiit'Jfri had not attempted to exercise any influence over Crawshaw. They did not care if the " whole town came to Court." Mr Stout explained that defendant did not wish to reflect upon plaintiffs. j iik Worship granted an adjournment, intimating that aa Crawshaw had refused to answer to his subpoena, ho would have to come before the Court and shew cause. After th*i adjournment, Boaz Crawshnw appeared, and stated, in explanation, that lie neglected to come to Court previously because he did not consider he could give evidence that would avaii either party. He called upon defendant, and made an explanation to that effect to him. Defendant then told him that he would not call upon him to give evidence. Thinking, therefore, that defendant would instruct Ins counsel to that effect, witness failed to come to Court.

Ilia Worship reminded the witness that, having been subpoenaed, it. was not necessary that he should wait upon any person. His sole duty, having been subpoenaed, was to attend Court as a witness. Besides, the statement which had been made by defendant differed materially from what witness had said. He understood that witness waß an illiterate man ; otherwise he would have inflicted the full penalty (£10) allowed by the Act. Under the circumstances he called upon him. to pay a line of 40s, «r, in default, to go to gaol for four days. Ihe witness elected to pay the fine, and, on being examined by Mr Stout, stated, that he met Barclay in the street about a fortnight ago, and during a conversation which took place between them, Barclay stated that Itodham had a horse belonging to his firm ; tlj.it the firm gave him no receipt for the horse, but lent it to him.

Robert Gawn, horse-dealer, stated that he considered the horse, in respect of which plaintiffs' claim, had been made, was worth about £17.

His Worship said he con&idtred the weight of evidence was in favour of the plaintiffs. He pointed out that, according to tlio evidence, A itken was waited upon by one of the plaintiffs before the death of Rudhaio, and before any dispute took place, and the person who wailed upon Aitken expressed & desiro to take the horse away, whereupon Aitken asked that the horse might be left with him, because, if it were taken away, it would have the efleet of breaking up the team. It had also been shown that it was not an unusual thing for one man to lend a horse to another without exacting payment. Judgment for plaintiffs for £25, together will* coats, to be reduced to Is on defendant returning the horse to plaintiffs.

Pritchard v. Adam Begg.-- Claim for £35, made up as follows : £30 for the wrongful detention of a certain bay horse, and £5 damages sustained, by plaintiff in consequence of such detention. Mr Stout for plaintiff, Mr Stewart for defendant. The defendant'u plea was a general denial. Plaintiif gave evidence supporting the plaint that one of the horsee which he bought from Kodham was " now detained by defendant."

CrofM-uxammed : If the sale should bo questioned, plaintiff would be quite prepared to defend Ins position. He denied that he knew when, or how, Rodham left the Province. He did not suggest how Rodham should leave Otago. He paid Rodham £450. Georgo M'Gavin, hottlkeeper, Dunedin, stated that Rodham authorised him to send a horse, which was then in hts stable, to "the" paddock, and accordingly witness sent the: horse to defendant's paddock. Witness ultimately offered to give up the horse, and also sent a note to defendant to restore the animal. He had not made any claim for the horse. Witness explained that defendant understood that all horses sent to fche paddotk by him were to be paid for before taken away from the paddock, unless special arrangements were made. Defendant stated that he refused to give up possession of the horse until 23s was paid. Only 7s (id was offered. Henry Goodman, employed by pbiiutiff, stated that he applied to defendant, on behalf of plaintiff, for the horse. Witness offered to give defendant 7a 6d for paddocking for three weeks. Defendaut said that M'Gavin had sent him. a note telling him not to give any person the horse without notice from him ; and defendant also Raid that he would not give witness the horse because the order which he brought was not a proper one.

Mr Stewart urged in defence that defendant hail a lien upon the horse, and also that he was not bound to give up the horse until ita keep w:ib paid fur. He submitted that the plaintiff must be nonsuited.

Mr Stout' replied, and expressed his surprise that counsel for defendant should have made reflections .upon plaintiff in regard to the purchase of the horse without adducing evidence in support.

The plaintiff was nonsuited, His Worship explaining that he did not consider thts document which the defendant had received from M'Gavin a sufficient authority within the meaning of the Act.

Willium jNicholl, farmer, West Taieri, v. Hamblcton, engineer, Dunedin.—Claim of £49 ss, for alleged neglect on the part of the defendant to supply, before the 19th January, 1872, a reaping machine in good working order; and also for loss sustained in consequence. Mr Harris for plaintiff, Mr Stout for defendant. The case was not concluded when the Court adjourned at 7.15 p.m.