A HORSE DEAL

Southland Times, Issue 20171, 6 May 1927, Page 10

A HORSE DEAL

QUESTION OF WARRANTY. VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT. The Magistrate’s Court was occupied for a long time yesterday in the hearing of a case in which William John Boyd, farmer of Greenhills, claimed £l5 from John Graham, stock-dealer, Kennington. Mr G. Cruickshank, S.M., was on the Bench. The plaintiff claimed to recover the sum of £l5, balance of the price of two horses sold and delivered by plaintiff to the defendant on or about March 6, 1927. Plaintiff in his statement of claim stated that he sold two horses to defendant at the price of £23, and received on the same date from defendant in exchange therefor a draught mare valued for the purpose of the deal at £l5. The defendant was to pay the balance, £B, in cash. The mare had been warranted sound for work, but had not proved so. The mare had not been returned and the value of the mare for the purpose of the deal, £l5, was claimed. Mr W. A. Stout appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Eric Russell for the defendant. Mr Stout, in outlining the facts of the deal, stated that the transaction took place early in March. The year previous defendant sold a mare to plaintiff for £3O. Plaintiff was asked to give an estimate for carting in connection with the erection of the new pilot station at Greenhills, and at the time was on the lookout for a suitable horse to assist in doing the work. He approached defendant, who said he had a mare which would suit the purpose and was really a better beast than the one previously sold to plaintiff. The deal was fixed up and the mare later delivered. On taking delivery plaintiff remarked that the mare was in poor condition and unfit for the work. Defendant replied that if the mare could not do the work he would take it back. Plaintiff, in evidence, stated that he was engaged by the Borough Council to do carting for the work at the pilot house. He had given a price for the work, but did not know whether it had been accepted prior to seeing defendant about a horse for the work. He told defendant about the contract and said he wanted a steady horse for shaft work. Defendant replied that he had a mare some years older than the one sold to witness last year, but that it was fully as good a mare as the first one. “She is a cheap mare at £15,” defendant had said. Plaintiff made a deal with defendant, plaintiff to take the mare for £l5 and defendant to buy two young horses from defendant for £23, defendant paying the £8 difference in cash. He later received word that the council had accepted his price to do the work, whereupon he arranged with defendant to deliver the mare. They mutually agreed to take delivery of the respective horses at Awarua. Witness did not like the look of the mare when it was handed over and remarked accordingly to Graham. Defendant replied that the mare was much better than she looked, and that if she was not as good as the previous mare sold, plaintiff need not keep her. The animal did not feed at all well when witness got her home. After the first day’s work the mare was showing signs of distress, and later efforts showed that she had no strength whatever. Plaintiff ’phoned defendant and told him that his horse was not suitable. Plaintiff then offered to cancel the deal, but defendant would not agree. At the present time the mare was worth £2 or £3, but it is doubtful if she could be sold. To Mr Russell: Plaintiff denied, inquiring after the old mare when he purchased the £3O mare. He did not remember defendant telling him what the mare in dispute was capable of. Albert Howell, employed by plaintiff, gave evidence in support of plaintiff’s contention that the mare was in poor condition. The road over which the carting was done was very hilly in places. The track was dry and in good condition. The mare would not pull at all, and seemed unable to put any heart into her work. She appeared to be very weak. Robert John Davidson, farmer at Greenhills, said he examined the mare and in his opinion she should be “pensioned off.” She was not fit to work in a team of young horses. The mare was not worth more than £5. Mr Eric Russell, in opening the case for defendant, said that the defence would be a complete denial that any warranty had been given. He outlined at length the events leading up to the effecting of the deal, and submitted that no mention of a guarantee or any representations had been made. It was only on the day that delivery was given that the plaintiff had spoken a word about carting gravel. Defendant had been so incensed at plaintiff urging that misrepresentation had been made, that he was determined to fight the matter to the last ditch. John Graham, the defendant, gave evidence that plaintiff had offered £l2 for the mare in question but witness wanted £l6. Witness came down to £l5 and then plaintiff suggested a swap for a filly. In reply to plaintiff, witness had told him what work the mare had done in the last year. No mention had been made of the mare’s carting gravel. Boyd had said he wanted a quiet old horse. The mare was suitable for such work. Witness explained how the swap of the colt and the pony had been arranged. On the day of delivery Boyd had mentioned that he was going to use the mare to cart gravel next day. Witness told him to give her a chance, as she had been on grass for some time. Plaintiff had said she would suit him all right. Witness had on no occasion given a warranty. Witness was subjected to lengthy crossexamination by Mr Stout. Lancelot Harper, auctioneer for Henderson and Co., who had been present when the deal was made, also gave evidence. He stated that no guarantee or warranty was given while he was present. The mare was suitable for odd carting on the farm, but not for heavy carting. The Magistrate said that it was really a claim for the sale of a horse alleged to have been sold under a warranty that the mare was fit for a gravel contract. It seemed that it was, however, merely a case of “caveat emptor.” He could not see that there had been any warranty and judgment would therefore be for defendant. Solicitor’s fee of £2 2/- was allowed.