MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18875, 30 May 1923, Page 10

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Tuesday, May 29. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) Undefended Cases.—Judgment was given for plaintiff by default in the following cases: —Amelia Walker v. Ernest A. Wood, claim £3 17s for goods supplied, with costa (£1 3s 6d); the D.S.A. (Limited) v. A. Dolheguy (Waimate), claim £3 3s sd, with costs (£1 3s 6d); E.' J. Pezct v. William Charles Reynolds, claim £9. 17s 2d. on an account stated, for good. supplied, with costs (£1 lls 6d); Laidlaw and Gray v. Thomas O'Connell (Balclutha), claim 18s 9d, on an. account stated, with costs (8s); same v. George Alexander (Lauder), claim lls 6d, on account stated, with costs (15s). Judgment Summonses. —R. Powley and Co. proceeded against W. Brooks for the recovery of £2, the balance of an account due for goods supplied, with costs (6s). —An order was made for the payment of the amount forthwith, in default thre© days’ imprisonment.—H. Sauer claimed from J. Ferguson on a judgment summons the sum of £1 14s 9d, for goods, supplied, with costs (6s).—The Magistrate made an order for the payment of the amount, in default two days' imprisonment.

A Deal in Horseflesh.—The case was continued in which John S. Bolting, farmer, of Wingatui, claimed from Robert Brockbank, farmer, of Waitati, the sum of £lB. The plaintiff claimed that on February 19, 1923, he bought from the defendant a bay mare for £lB. As fho mare was found to be unsound, in th© mouth, defendant agreed to accept the return of it, but ho had failed to repay the sum of £lB as agreed.—Mr Hay appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Moore for the defendant. During the original hearing it was stated that the mare was sold with a guarantee of soundness, but, according to the evidence of the plaintiff, the animal did not fulfil that description.—When, th© case was resumed Mr Hey produced the auctioneer’s entry book and continued his crossexamination of the defendant as to the negotiations between the two men. —William Hostio, in evidence,, said that he had formerly owned the horse. It had broken a rib while young, but this did not affect its soundness, and he had found it satisfactory in every way. Ho saw the animal when it was brought back to the yards to be sold a second time by agreement of the parties, and it then appeared to him that the horse had been in work. —George Grant, livery stable keeper, and Alexander White, farmer, both of whom gave evidence, agreed. that tho injury from which the horse w r as suffering did not affect it for working purposes.—Tho Magistrate said it was not a case with which he was altogether satisfied, and he did not consider that the plaintiff had fulfilled the onus of proof. The ethics of a hors© sale appeared to be different from those of other transactions, and to be quite in a class by themselves. Another feature of the cas© was the delay on the part of the plaintiff before taking any action. The plaintiff would bo nonsuited and ordered to pay costs totalling £4 15s. -