SELLING A HORSE

Southland Times, Issue 20013, 29 October 1926, Page 10

SELLING A HORSE

PURCHASER RETURNS THE “OUTLAW." AUCTIONEER SELLS REJECT AND SUES FOR DIFFERENCE. A case concerned with the purchase of a horse on the auctioneer’s assertion that it was a quiet one occupied the Court yesterday morning, when F. W. Bowden and Company claimed from David Tuffery the sum of £6 10/-. Mr G. Cruickshank, S.M., was on the bench. Mr Horace Macalister appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr Robertson for the defendant. Mr Macalister explained that plaintiffs put up for sale by auction a horse which was knocked down to defendant. The latter gave a cheque for the horse and took the animal away, but later returned and left the horse in the auctioneers’ yard. Defendant also stated that he would stop payment of his cheque. At their sale a fortnight later plaintiffs sold the horse at £3 less than it was knocked down to defendant. Plaintiffs were claiming for this amount and for the keep of the horse during the fortnight. Frederick William Bowden gave evidence that he conducted weekly horse sales. Conditions of sale were posted on the wall and attention was always called to these conditions before the sale commenced. After the sale in question the horse had been left in his yard. A cheque for £8 hal been paid on the day of the sale, but was later returned by the bank as it had received instructions not to pay. When defendant brought back the horse he said it was an “outlaw.” Witness tried the horse out in a gig and it went quietly. Defendant watched in the yard. The try-out did not satisfy defendant, who left the horse in the yard. Witness later wrote to defendant and told him the horse was being left in the yard at his expense and risk. Defendant’s wife called to see him in response to the letter, but nothing came of the interview. Witness wrote that he would impound the horse, but found he could not. do that, so wrote further to defendant that he would sell the horse, which was done on the Saturday, the animal realising £5. The horse had been guaranteed as quiet and capable of being driven by children. To Mr Robertson: When defendant returned the horse he said it was an outlaw and had played up at the blacksmith’s shop. Defendant’s wife had stated when she interviewed witness that she would pay for the horse rather than go to law, but was not willing to pay for the stabling. William Green, auctioneer for Bowden and Company, stated that he had drawn attention to the conditions of sale hanging up in the shed. The horse in question was sold as being thoroughly quiet. Witness had told the buyers that the owner was present and the latter stated that the horse was quiet and his children could drive it to school. The horse was knocked down to defendant. About 4.30 in the afternoon a man—not the defendant—came into the yard leading the horse. The Man, Denis Hunt, was intoxicated and shouted out that the horse was an outlaw. Defendant was present. The horse was then harnessed up without any trouble and witness and a Mr Hughes drove round the block. The horse did not attempt to kick or play up. To Mr Robertson: He had given no guarantee when selling the horse, but had referred them to the owner. Mrs Mcßae, wife of the previous owner of the horse, gave evidence that the horse had always been quiet. She and the children had frequently ridden and driven it. The horse had never kicked to her knowledge. Even her youngest children could catch and harness him. To Mr Robertson: They had got rid of the horse because they had sold their place. Mr Robertson submitted that the horse had been bought on the representations of the owner and auctioneer, and that there was no other reasonable course open to defendant but to return the animal when it was found to be unruly. Defendant’s wife gave evidence that she had bought the horse at auction. The auctioneer had said nothing of the conditions of sale till after the trouble about the horse. She wanted a horse quiet and reliable. The auctioneer had stated that a lady or child could drive the horse; otherwise she would not have bid for it. The horse had been paid for before it was taken away. She and her busband took the horse to Mr Mclntyre’s blacksmith shop. Her husband was putting the collar on the horse when the horse kicked “something terrible.” She said to her husband to take it away as she could never drive it. They took the horse straight back. To Mr Macalister: She did not hear Mr Green call attention to the conditions of sale. Her husband, not Hunt, had taken the horse round to Bowden’s. Defendant gave evidence of the unruly behaviour of the horse in the blacksmith’s yard. Denis Hunt had come along and had attempted to put the harness on, but the horse had lashed out. No woman could drive such a horse. The horse had been harnessed by three men in a stall at Bowden’s. Andrew Mclntyre, blacksmith, said he remembered defendant bringing the horse round and asking witness' opinion of it. The horse had kicked out when witness tried to examine the hind feet. The horse had also kicked at defendant when he tried to put the harness on. To Mr Macalister: Quiet horses sometimes play up in a blacks.mith’s shop if frightened, but quiet horses would not kick. Two other witnesses gave brief evidence regarding the horse’s unruliness. The Magistrate gave a verdict for the plaintiff. He said he was quite satisfied that a warrant} 7 had been given that the horse was fit for a woman to drive, but did not consider that sufficient trial had been given by defendant. The horse had merely been taken round to a blacksmith’s shop and they had tried to harness it. The horse should have been taken home and given a longer trial. Judgment would be for the amount claimed, £6 10/-, with Court costs £1 10/and solicitors’ fee £1 6/-.