MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10035, 28 April 1894, Page 2 (Supplement)

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Fmday, April 27. (Before Mr E. H. Carew, S.M.)

Judgment was given for the plaintiffs, with ! coitp, in tlie following undefended cases:— Ablfeld Bros, (for whom Mr Sim appeared) v. Thomas Beafluall (Wellington), claim £23 lls lOcl, on a dishouound bill; Niinnioaiid Blair v. Edward Gaaeoigue (Wellington), claim £5 8a Bd, for goods supplied (judgment for £5 7s 8d); same v. W. H. MountEuld (Hawke's Biy), claim £1 16s 9d, for goods supplied; Reunert and Co (for whom Mr Wilkinson appeared) v. John White (Oamaru), cjaim £2 10a 5--, for ( goods supplied; same v. John Euasell (Gore), claim £1 is 6d, for goods supplied. Arthnr Alexander Adams v. David Gain.— | Claim £33 10s, on a dishonoured promissory note.—Mr A. S. Adams appeared for the plain- i tiff —The defendant did not appear, and judgment was given for £32 10s, and costs. Charles Cooper v. Dongla3 Snodgrass.— Claim £3 Ms, on a judgment summons.—There was no appearance oE the defendant, and an order was made for the payment of the amount claimed, with cosfs, by instalments of 20s a month, in default five days' imprisonment. Thomas Holloway v. John Scott—Claim £10, for the trespass of cattle upon plaintiff's Jand.—ln this case the plaintiff said that he had sustained damage through the trespass, at divers times, of the defendant's cattle upon his land, being part of section 77, block 111, and allotments 2 and 3 of section 80, block 11, township of Broad Bay. In consequence of the trespass tbo plaintiffs fences were broken, iwd his vegetable garden, in which were growing turnips, polatots, broccoli, and carrot?, was damaged and destroyed. Wherefore the plaintiff sought to recover £10 for the said damage. —Mr Wilkinson appeared for the plaintiff, and Sir Fraser for the defendant, who paid £116 a into court.—After evidence, judgment was given for the plaintift^or £2 10s and costs, less the amount paid into court. John Gore v. Johu Chilcott.—ln this case the plaintiff sued the defendant for negligently overdriving a horse on the 24th March, whereby the animal w«s hilled; and also for failing, pursuant to a contract of hiring, to return the said horse uninjured to the plaintiff. Wherefor the plaintiff claimed £20 (the value of the horse), and £5 damage for the loss of the use of it, and for the expenses of an examination of the body, and of burying it, and other charges arising cus of the defendant's acts.—Sir F. R. Chapman appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Solomon for the defendant. —In this previously-heard case hia Worship gave judgment as follows: —" Subjsct to the question of the fitness of the horse to perform the journey, or any portion of it, there 13 no proof of overdriving in respect to speed, and the evidence goes to show that the distance would not be excessive with careful and proper driving. The contract note, filled in by plaintiff and signed by defendant, provides for a journey to Mosgiel, and in the absenoe of proof of fraud or misrepresentation that must be taken to ba the contract between the parties. The fact, also admitted by defendant, that he was near to Mosgiel when1 he made s»p his mind to go to Petrie's assista in showing that it was not his original intention to go so far. That being so defendant will be liablo if the death of the horse caa be traced to the fact of his extending the journey bsyend the stipulated distance. Mr Hamilton has sworn that b.9 examined the horse on the day after ifc died, and fcuDd the cause of death to ba congestion of the luDgs, which in his opinion was caused by overdriving. The plaintiffs evidence shows that he lot the horse on the day before to go to Brighton, and after the horse's death he aecertiined that tha horse was seen on that day tied up to a ittnee near Oatram, and ho says ho waold cot havcj let it to go to Outram, because tbo horse was too free, and not fit for that long journey. The evidence on the plaintiffs aide is that the hcrse appeared to be quite well and in good spirits on the morning the defendant took him away, but fio defendant , taya he was dull and seemed tired, and he thoughb ho must have dons a hard day* work on the preceding day. Assuming the evidence to lse. truo that the horse was carefully driven on the outward jaurney, it ictms to mo highly probable that the attack of congestion roust have commenced before the horse came under defendant's control, possibly from want of proper caro on the preceding day. Whether that is so or not, the Via!question teemo to be: Was the death of the horse occasioned by the additional work imposed upon hira beyond that provided for in the contract, or, in othtr words, did the work of the extra journey from Mosgiel to Petrie's and back kill the horse? in which case the defendant must bs held liable. Now, tho horse was let for a journey of about 20 miles, but he travelled some 47 or 48 miles, the distance from Dunedin to Petrie's (26 miles) being in fact more than the whole distance he should have travelled under the contract. From the time taken in reschiDg there, he must havo gone at a fair pace, and defendant says there seemed nothing wrong with him, excepting that lie appeared to be a little tired. It is evideufc aleo that the horse travelled at a fair pa.cc <on tha return journey as far as the Mosgiel side of Saddle Hill, after which he appears nob to live been able to go beyond a walking pace. I think there is sufficient to show that the horse <lied from hard work when in an unfit condition to do hard work, and that in aU probability had •the journey not exceeded the distance to Mosgiel and back the horse could have performed at without serious consequences, and it wag the addition to the journey in the condition the Jiorse was then in that caused its death. I thiDk also that the defendant is liable on the ground that he continued the journey long after the horse'e condition would have convinced a prudent man that it was not fit to travel. Jadgmeßt for plaintiff for £20, with'costs of court (225), witnesses' expensea (70s), and professional costs (265);"-