DISPUTE OVER A HORSE.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 16186, 24 July 1923, Page 6

DISPUTE OVER A HORSE.

Tlie civil claim J. C. Ward (Mr. Wauchop) v. W. A, Stephens (Mr. Bernard), in which the plaintiff sought the return of a. horse, was continued in the -Magistrate's Court this afternoon. Evidence for the plaintiff was given by Donald Cameron, who said that Stephens had told him that he had given the mare to Ward. This concluded the case for the plaintiff. Mr. Eurnard said it would he shown that- it was the defendant who broke the,mare in, not plaintiff, ft was not right to say that plaintiff had converted the ma.ro from a state of viciousness to a good hunting mare. Albert Reginald Mine, auctioneer and stock agent, said that defendant had been for 17 years employed by Williams and Kettle in connection with horse sales. For the breaking in of hunters and jumpers and as a rider witness had never seen his espial. Plaintiff was a good rider, hut as a- breaker-in, could not com pa re with defendant/ Witness could not understand why defendant should even talk of parting with tlie cream mare which was of exceptionally good breeding. He would not have accented £SO or £6O for it. To Mr. Wauchop witness denied hoaiA ing defendant refer to llie mare as “Jack's mare-.’’ The mate was no good as a hunter while Ward had her. It was only sinoe Stephens had taken possession of her that- the mare: had become any good as a hunter. William Allan Stephens, the defendant, denied that Ward had broken in the mare. Ward used to pome along ii> his spare time during the breaking-in. The first time, Ward took the marc out on the road, he had a spill; she was then broken in but was a fiery, spirted mare. Ward kept pestering him for thp mare, but defendant did not want to part with her, as lie wanted the mare for bis daughter. Eventually ho agreed to give him the mare, if lie (Ward) would pick a pony for defendant’s daughter. That was agreed upon. After some time had passed, defendant asked plaintiff what he proposed to do about either paying for the mare, returning it, or getting the pony. Ward asked, "Don’t you think I have done ppough to pay for that mare?.” Up gpoflier occnslon ho said that he- did not iptppd to do anything. After a week or two, when plaintiff did nothing, defendant wept and brought the mare away. Qn many occasions defendant had lept him money, at least £2O in all. (Proreedifl<o