MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 9796, 16 July 1903, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

♦ (Before Mr Barton, S.M.) "SOMETHING TO BOOT." At the Magistrate's Court this morning the case of Sydney Jones (Mr L. Rees) v. Nellie Davis (Mr Chrisp) was heard. Mr Rees for said the claim was for £4, the amount due on an exchange of horses. Plaintiff stated that m November last ' he made an exchange of horses with defendant at her request. Defendant was to exchange her horse for his and give £4 to boot. She knew plaintiffs horse and had been riding it off and on for 11 months. As far as he knew nothing was wrong with his horse when lie sold it to defendant, who refused to pay the £4 because the horse died on her hands, remarking that plaintiff had been well enough paid. Plaintiff had been on very ; -friendly terms with defendant before this , but relations had since been strained. Cross-examined by Mr Chrisp, plaintiff stated he had agreed to exchange the ; horses about 11 months before November, there was a, trial, but no exchange ; was made. The horse which plaintiff gave Miss Davis was m plaintiff's posession for three weeks before the cxi change m November., Miss Davis had offered £3 to boot, but plaintiff wanted : £4, and- defendant did not say she would give £3 10s, if the horse turned out all : right. Plaintiff was endeavoring to become engaged to Miss Davis. His Worship (to Mr Chrisp) : You are i seeking to import a breach of promise > into the case. " Plaintiff, continuing, stated he sold ■ Miss Davis' horse about two months • afterwards to his brother for £8. He ; valued his own horse at £12 10s. [ Re-examined by Mr Rees, witness stat- ■ ed his disagreement with Miss Davis took ■ place after the horse died. ; Defendant, m evidence, stated that it , had been agreed to exchange the horses, plaintiff to get £3 10s to boot. After a trial plaintiff expressed himself satisfied, i but said that as he was keeping company ■ with witness he did not like to take the i £3 10s. He offered the horse to witness i as a gift, but she refused as she did • not wish his people to think that she s was keeping company with him just to ■ get the horse. Then plaintiff stated he \ had an offer for witness 1 horse, and wit- 1 r ness asked how they stood, as she did i not want plaintiff's horse as a gift. Plain- • tiff said he would make a level exchange, . but afterwards a coolness arose between - them, and witness offered him £4 for his s horse, but plaintiff refused to take it. [ Witness then 'told him, as he could not . make up his mirid, he had better take his i horse and leave hers, which he did. ; Later plaintiff saw her again and stated | he was sorry he had taken his horse i away. Witness stated she would give i plaintiff £3 10s to boot if his horse picki ad up, it being m low condition. Plain- . tiff accepted this, and left his horse, tak- > ing hers. She went to the paddock, but found plaintiffs horse was not fit to be ridden. The horse got worse and died m Mr Parsons' liands. It was turned out m the best paddock m Ormond. Alexander Parsons 'stated he practised as a veterinary surgeon. The paddock m which the horse was put was good L enough to make it fat m a fortnight • if it nad any life m it. When he saw it > the horse was very low m condition, i was scouring badly, and by its pendulous belly he came to the conclusion that ■ the animal was suffering from chronic • gastritis. It was put into a fresh pad- • dock where no other stock had been for I months, but it would not eat any of. > the natural grasses, but chewed here and I there anything that was offensive. It was useless to administer drugs to aI horse m that condition, and it was put ■ m another fresh pasture, but with no improvement. "The horse was simply : a roosting-place for the minahs," remarki ed Mr Parsons, who stated he did not care to have the animal about his place. It wasted away, and was m a deplorable i condition until it died. On holding a ■ post-mortem he found one kidney wasted, ■ the stomach ulcerated, and one bowel perforated with hot flies. The condition ; the animal was m could have been noticed months before it died. Counsel then addressed the Court. Mr •■ Rees held that the law was clear that though the defendant had the misfortune to lose the horse, she had taken the risk and must pay the £3 10s which she stated ■ had been agreed upon. His Worship out that according > to plaintiffs own evidence at the time the exchange was made he stated the horse was m.: good condition, when evidently it was not. Defendant's evidence was that she agreed, to. give £3 10s if tire horse picked up, which it did not do. His Worship was inclined to think the plaintiff must have known, the horse was m a bad condition when he made the. agreement. Judgment must be for de^' fondant, and lie did not think the action should have been brought ct all. Court costs were 2s, one witness 8s lOd. SCRUB-CUTTING CONTRACT. 'Apirana Tipuna and two other natives v. Payne and Lysnar, of Parikanapa, sheepfanners, a claim of £45 for cutting and felling briars, scrub and manuka on defendants' property at Parikanapn. The work was commenced on March 26th, 1903, and the statement of claim set out that the work had been completed for defendants m terms of agreement on May 18th. Mr L. Rees appeared for plaintiffs and Mr.W. D. Lysnar for defendants. A counter-claim of* £27 15s 2d for goods supplied was set up. The defence was that the work had not been done satisfactorily. Rangi Thomson, one of the plaintiffs, stated, when/ refused payment by Mr Lysnar, that defendant stated plaintiffs would have to go back to where he had put a peg m and finish the work. Mr Lysnar did not complain of the whole of the work, nor of the manner the work was being done before the contract was signed. <■ OTHER OASES. Several other cases were adjourned. That of J. H. Ormond v. W. H. Watson, a claim of £3 for some iron, was setdown for hearing after the completion of the scrub-cutting case.