IDENTITY OF A HORSE.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 10961, 2 May 1907, Page 2

IDENTITY OF A HORSE.

JUSTICES PERPLEXED

A livery- stablekeeper's claim for the stabling and grazing df a~ horse was the subject of an action. at the Magistrate's Court this morning before Messrs G. Mattiiewson and J*- Somervell, J.'sP. ' Michael Keady (Mr 6. Stock) sued, Richard Lean (Mr Saihsbury)*for £7 4s> -^ MrStock ex,plaine<l r ;..tlja.t -"the circumstances 1 of the case : were ~cth*fdus, • and to some .extent rather extrabrdihdiy^Mic.haei Keady, proprietor Of' the. Railway.; Stables, deposed that" oh January 2611i .defendant 'brought a *gh^ bay pony; about 14.2, with; certain marks, and. branded M, on hear shoulder. It

remained at the-.felables for five days, and \j-as. taken away, again,, and then returned about; Febiuarv Sth. 'Oh March :17th defendant called for his horse,' but denied that -it was the one pointed out. Where 1 upon. ...-to- 'test defendant's knowledge of his Horse be pointed -out a stably horse, wliich def oiiclaiit ii.t iohce saddle^up, and .was' leaying, wli'eii witiiess; , tola;? him it -was iiotUis Iwise, .for it had white hind legs, which his animal did not- have. Defendanfafterwafds examined witness' paddocks. Subsequently defendant admitted he, had no mojiey'to pay .for ptabling, and consequently tlie. hors© was refused him. — By -the Bencli : Defendant -was muddled with liquor when he was Cested with the bigger^slable^lwrse.-^By Mr" Sainsbuty : Defendant ; was sober whert lite left the horse; in the first instance. The horse had Tieen stabled from March 15th. to April -Bth; at defendant's 1 request. The hoi»-> had only been' ridden out tcf the paddock a couple of times, dnd could not feay whether it had been lured out.— By Mr; Stock : The horse was* in the. stables during tlie 25;days and had hadwthree feeds a' day; —By the Bench ..:"; Tlie horse liad only been used since ,tlie commencement of these proceedings.— -Jolui groom, gave similar . evidence. r ße was sure the horee offered to defendant was the same 1 as one he left at the 'stables.-- William Potter, stableman, .; supported' both previous wit nesses;--By -?Mr; Saiiisburjr : He might liave ridden the horse bncte or .twice out' to "the paddock.- I By th©: Bench :' Stable horses were always ridden to the paddock, but when- ■ .thiere "were hone in 1 - they, took any horse ' in the 1 , stables they kneW. 1 - William Hawker deposed that he was^al tlw stables 611 March 17th wheh plaintiff pointed out a stable -horse,- 1 about 16 hands, which defendant saddled up, and was afterwards told it was not his. When pointed out what plaintiff said was his horse, defendant admitted it was his, and afterwards said it Mas not. — Constable Irwin also, stated that defendant gave him a description.; of tlie. mare, which, differed from tlie description given by plaintiff. — Mr Sainsbury intimated that the defence was that the horse offered was not the one left bv defendant. Notice was given to produc© the horse within a month, and the present action was tlw outcome. He submitted it was improper of plaintiff to have submitted defendant to 'tlte test when sie knew he was partly intoxicated. The claim for stabling for 25 days looked like loading up expenses against defendant, for plaintiff had been told the ownership of tlie horse shown him -was disputed. Defendant admitted liability of. 19s.— Riclwrd Lean, of Hastings, defendant, deposed that.it was bay pony mare, 13 or 14 hands, branded Mi with bar on off shoulder. He had had no liquor when he first called for his horee, but whilst down the street had a few drinks. Returning to the stables, lie admitted, that he was offered a horse which, after putting the saddle on, was not his own. He could not find his; horse in the stable or at the- paddocks, and after returning'from Tolaga Bay he gave plaintiff a notice to' produce his home within a month. He had owned the horse for six months'.— By tlte Bench : He had been accustomed to horses since 9 years of age, and had broken this Particular mare in himself. He had reused £25 for her, as she was a favorite of liis. He had not given instructions -fbr the horse- to be stable'd for 25 daysv-r-By Mr Stock: He did not tell Constable;lrwin that the horse was 15 or 16 hands. At that tima he was not exactly sure whether the horse liad a whito hind leg or not. Tlte constable must luive made a mistake in copying out the description from the back of an envelope into his book. He did not take particular notice of the horse pointed out to him by plaintiff, but discovered his mistake after putting the saddle on its back. The.evidence given by plaintiff and his three witnesses was incorrect. Witness was never asked for payment.— William James Woon, jockey, of Hastings, stated that- he had ridden the horse from Hastings to Wairoa, and was with defendant when the horse was token to the stables. The mare was branded on the off shoulder, and had white on one hind leg. Plaintiff had shown him a horse which he said was not defendant's. The animal liad a scar on the chest, which defendant's had not. He had) seen this horse ridden in the street. — After a good deal of consideration the Bench stated tluit the evidence was most conflicting, but was mostly in favor of plaintiff. On tlie other hand, defendant was a man accustomed to horses, and should certainly know his horse. In the absence of further evidence plaintiff would have to be nonsuited, — Mr Stock objected contending that he could not be nonsuited if, the oalance of evidence was in his client's favor.T— Mr Sainsbury took exception to this interruption during the reading of the judgment. — Mr Stock pointed out that defendant had consented to judgment for 19s, which he was at least entitled to. If the Bench was in doubt they should leave it for re-hearing before tlte Magistrate, but it was an extraordinary proceeding for the Bench to announce tlie evidence was in favor of plaintiff and to then nonsuit him*— Mr Matthewson explained the Bencli was divided.— Mr Sainsbury pointed out the case had been heard, and could not be referred to the Magistrate.—Mi- Stock suggested the: proper course was to call in a third Justice.— -Mr Matthewson remarked that tlie Bench feared if they cave judgment for plaintiff it would prejudice any subsequent action that niight be taken by defendant for; the recovery: of his horse--— Mr Stock submitted it would not enter into the case at all. —Mr Sainsbury asked that; his client should be allowed to take proceedings for tlie recovery of liis horse, and plaintiff could then record; a counter claim for exr penses. — After a little further consideration the Bench announced they had made up tlieir mind to give judgment for plaintiff for £1 16s, disiillowing tlie charge for 25 days' stabling'at 5s per day, and substituting grazing at 2s per day. The question of costs was also argued, but they wer e allowed to the extent of £1 16s;