A WAITARA HORSE DEAL.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 7999, 9 December 1905, Page 3

A WAITARA HORSE DEAL.

FINISHED IX THE COrilTS. On Friday morning Mr T. Ifutchi »cn.' S.M., gave judgment in the Waitara case lMeaMey v. ItolxM'ts. in which Mr Hoy (Messrs lt< y un.'l Wiloii) for tile plaint i!T. and Mr P. P-. l'it>hcH,,:t, of Waitara, for th.' deft I.:lam. The juilginent, which is interesting to was given in the following terms "The plaintitY claims £lO, the balance of the agrnsl price of a mare ho'd liv him lo deu mlant. The fei.dant in -icfence sits up a breach of warranty of soundness, which, he alleges, was piven at the sale. 'l'lic undisputed facts are ithat |the sale was effected at Trenul on May 2H last. The <letendant). canio ■to the plaintiff's farm that day and after inspection of the aiare, in company with plaintiff and two other por. sens, agreetl to buy the man; gl the plaintiff's price of £BB. He dliln't roquirc the uw ci the animal at en®, ami so the plaintiff kept it at his farai till Aug. 2, when it Was delivered to the defendant l at Wai?ara. During the interval which elapsed between the sale ami the delivery a swelling, r.i,l observable at the time of ins|n-c; I' 11, appeared on one of the a;.:n a s legs above the knee. It v s first .observed some days : . 'oi - the delivery, and was

s-' i . plainly visil^lv,. though, it was id to have /diminished somen Rat, when delivery uas made. The ik'fendant noticed it whortiy aft-T tleliw ery, and ankv I for an abatement of two pounds o(T 1h" price on account of it. which tie plaintitl refused. Subth.' defendant consulted two profi-ssiveterinary inen, who treated the n.are. As the result the defendant paid £ls into the plain-

id's bank account at Waitara, awl

suit a letter stating- that, hv declined k> pay anything more, Tho ' oviti-nco as to warranty is of a two- * oW Kimi. The plainrtin Ktnlrs that on the insjKTljcn <rf tho horso hj?. said : "The mare, to fhe tx»st of my knowledge, is sound." That s«m:o i such statonxnt was^madc'at tho tinvo i is cornrfjoratKl by one of the two other witnesses pirseM ffHrown), who said tho words were : "As far as I know she is sound." Iltit curiously enough the defendant does not remember any such .statement- having t..vn jikkli* by t!ii* plaintifT. and docs ' not, therefore, n-ly upon any warrant at the tinre of inspection and actual sale. What the defendant ruli« s upon as evidence of a warranty is that 'soir.owhere about tho 2."ith of May the plaintilT inatle the statt-m, nt i*hat -h*i a mare for sale, u ur \ears ok), sound with thi» i-\n'i»ti<'ii of a wen on thf stomach.' No other evidence than that Involwl in this \ayue statt-nnMit i.r ofTrrt<l of warranty. I am satisfied that whether evKhmv of a warranty as jiivm thr plaintilT or, that g-iv-<n» b> thv defendant is takm the driViio* hits failed. The warranty involved in the words* used by thy plaimifi wh' ii the sale was t elTerte,-j is obviously a qualified warranty. It was not shown that there was any def'-et known to the plaintiff which | was c mcealvd. Hjithur the cuitrary That ■dispose.:/ of any tlf»frnre arising out of the plaintiffs admitted stateniejit, supposiirg the defendant could rely cat it|K-(Uli-phanl <»n 'l"h" warranty sup.posr<l to have bt en involvctl in the conversation of May 25 does not. in fact, exist. For I am clearly of opinion that there was no sab l pending when the conversation took place ; and if any words were used which, in the case of e p»ndin,4 silo, could, 'l/o treated as warrantable, they were not us-das or intended to be. a warranty. At most, they were a- represi nt'at ion. and the law is clear that a representation not math* «1| the sale (in which cane it would probably be h'-ld to be a warranty) must be shown to be false to the knowledge of the [x-rson leaking the iii n is e (Miphunt ,\hV, 1 :ti i:t."V). ! h.i'.'e .! th r «.''gho»d that the mare was i;nion:*d. 'J'his is \ery di.iibtnil ev, n "i'on the evidence, takanimal as 1 ailee .»f the tle'endant. I th:nk. n" 1 ' 1- prol-aMe that the injury t.» wliich the allegifl unsoun<lness is f raced was n-ceivr-d after the sale, wht ir the plaintiff ht'M Ihe

aoiiii.il aw liillit' lit the iMcmlnnt. I liav.- ii'.i (I.'alt uith l|ii> nlhwd ivnrrarity <■!" an<' bit'ouse even if there w.T.- «r;r Riven, which is net proved, the stmoment of ogv made by the plaintiff waM substantially in accordance with thii fact. Judgment for the plaintiff." In to Mr Roy, 1 hf l Magistrate said that costs would"bo fixed nt nest the Court at Wai,u'"■ :