CLAIM SUCCEEDS

Southland Times, Issue 25308, 11 June 1935, Page 4

CLAIM SUCCEEDS

RESERVED JUDGMENT VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF Reserved judgment was delivered by Mr W. IL Freeman, S.M., at the Gore Magistrate’s Court yesterday on the civil action heard a fortnight ago in which Donald Gorrie, of Kauana, farmer, sued John Holland, of Lumsden, stallion owner, to recover the sum of £62 4/6, made up of wages from September 1, 1934, to January 31, JC3S, at £3 a week, less £3 15/6 paid on account. The defendant counterclaimed for the sum of £B7 2/9, made up of £3O paid on a motor truck purchased by the plaintiff without the authority of the defendant and debited to the defendant; various items, including overcoat, repairs to cover, neck cover, Stockholm tar, sugar of lead, medicine, chaff, expenses for box and feed at the Winton horse parade debited to the defendant without his authority, totalling £5 10/9; fees for the service of two mares owned by G. Herron not accounted for by the plaintiff, amounting to £l2 12/-; other fees not accounted for, £5; fees for service of six mares undercharged by plaintiff, £l2 12/-, and service fees undercharged by plaintiff without the authority of the defendant, £2l 8/-. Mr W. G. Tait appeared for the plaintiff and Mr O. J. Howells for the defendant.

In giving judgment the Magistrate said after traversing the evidence that the defendant did not impress him as a truthful witness. Defendant appeared to him to be making up his evidence as he went along. He accepted plaintiff’s evidence and was satisfied that plaintiff was engaged to travel the horse at £3 a week and found and was authorized to purchase the truck. Dealing with the minor items on the counter-claim the Magistrate said that the plaintiff’s authority would, apart from direct authority, authorize him to purchase articles and goods necessary for the horse. Small purchases would necessarily be required from time to time. Plaintiff was allowed the expenses in connection with the Winton horse parade and 7/6 paid to Sam Lee. Regarding an overcoat for which compensation was claimed on the score that defendant took it away, the Magistrate said that if defendant left the coat at the Courthouse at Lumsden within a week he would allow defendant the item of £1 18/6. Plaintiff was allowed all the other minor items in the first part of the defendant’s counterclaim.

On the question of sums alleged to have been undercharged by plaintiff for services without the authority of the def endant,, the Magistrate said that as previously stated he disbelieved the defendant’s evidence and disallowed these items from his claim. Defendant admitted he knevz at the beginning that the horse was not sound and the probabilities were therefore stronger than the arrangement was as alleged by plaintiff, namely, that he was to do the best he could with fees for the horse. Judgment would therefore be for the plaintiff on the claim for the amount claimed, £62 4/6 (to be reduced by £t 18/6 if the coat was returned) with Court costs and witnesses’ expenses and solicitor’s fee as per scale, and on the counter-claim judgment would be for the plaintiff.