A HORSE DEAL.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIX, Issue 97, 14 August 1914, Page 6

A HORSE DEAL.

A DISPUTED EXCHANGE. At the Court this morning R. Rich I tor (.Mr Lawrence) proceeded againsl I A. F. Cuff i.-Mr Rutherford) for the value of a horse alleged to have beer I bought. Ronald Richter, plaintiff, gave evidence that on June 26th, Walsh, an I employee of defendant, asked if witness had a horse which he would ex--1 change for one of Cult’s. The next ' I day he met Cuff and discussed the matI ter with him. Cuff said he wanted I £2O for his horse-, and said he would I leave it to Walsh to make,a deal if he I could. Cuff’s.horse was on tno Show- ‘ ground, and «itnesi agreed with Walsh I to go to the Showground with his horse land leave him there, taking Cuff’s I horse homo to try him in the plough I and the cart. Later Walsh called at I the house and witness told him Cuff’s I horse was no good for ploughing, but I he would keep him for a few days for a I further trial. After this trial witness ’j decided that the horse was no good to I him. He asked Walsh if Cuff would j buy his horse, Walsh saying he could I not say as to that. On July 10th witI ness saw Walsh again, when he said J witness’ horse was still a bit g#eon. Witness found that Cuff’s horse had I gone lame. Some time later witness j met Cuff, and Cuff said the deal had | I been made—the horses Had been ex- 1 j changed. Witness stated what Walsh j had said, Cuff saying tiiat arrangeI rnonts should have been made with I him. Cuff said witness woidd have to use force to get his horse back. With both Cuff and Walsh witness’ arrangement was that the horse should be taken on trial only. To Mr Rutherfiml: Witness demanded .£25 for his horse. Cuff's horse was now in a stable in Stratford. On July 2ltli witness had the horse in town for I the purpose of returning it to Cuff. Robert Charles Gardner, who took I over Richter's farm, at Xgaere, gave |' evidence that on July .lUth he was j: present at an interview between Richter and Walsh, when Richter said Cuff ' might keep his (Richter’s) horse until Richter was settled on his new farm 1 at Midhirst. This closed the case for plaintiff. Albert Frank Cuff, defendant, gave evidence that the arrangement he made was thftt on the Monday following June 23th the horses should be exchanged in front of witness’ shop as Richter was on a trip from Xgaere to Midhirst. Between June 26th and July 24th witness only saw Richter and the horse ' r,nee— at a distance. On July 24th ; witness told Richter that if he cornplained about the horse after about a r week he would have quashed the deal, r but when the horse was kept for a t month and Richter had done all his 15 •learing up work and shifted his furniture, he (witness)/presumed the deal „ was concluded. To Mr Lawrence: Witness under- t stood that the deal was clinched on 1-1 June 27th by Richter taking witness’s * horse and leaving his own. • Ernest A. Walsh gave evidence that . )i) June 2Uth Mrs Richter suggested .

’xchauging the horses. On the next visit Richter said he would want something to boot. After June 27th ‘Richter saw his horse in the cart and asked how it was getting on, also saying that Cuff’s horse was going well. Right up to July 24th neither Richter nor his wife made any complaint about Cuff’s horse.

The S.M. said the only thing for him to decide was on what terms the horses were parted with. The weight of evidence seemed to be in the direc-

uon of showing that there was no agreement for trials on either side. The four weeks that plaintiff kept the horse would not he a reasonable time for a trial in the circumstances. Judgment would be for defendant. Costs totalled £2 3s.