RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 3621, 10 May 1886, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

WAIMATE— Friday, May 7in. (Before J. S. Beswick, Esq., R.M., and Dr Stacpoolo, J.P.) UNBEQISTEBBD DOGS. A. Wilson, G. Stanton, Mary Ann Garrick and Michael O'Rourkc wero respectively fined 10s and 7b costs for having unregistered dogs m their possession. For a similar breach of the law F. A. Wiigg was mulcted m 20s for two dogs. TUB CIBCUS STABLING AND IMPOUNDING CASE. . George Freeman, poundkeeper, Waimato, sued the proprietors of St. Leon's circus for £3 18s for breach of agreement, m failing to carry out their arrangement with the plaintiff as to the stabling of their horses m his livery stables whilst performing at Waimate. Mr Raymond appeared for the defendants. Tho plaintiff conducted his own caso. The plaintiff gavo evidence to tho effect that on tho 24th ultimo tho advance agent for tho troupo (Mr Morgan) asked him (plaintiff) whether ho could accommodate tho circus horses with stabling, whereupon plaintiff told him to sco tho stables, and then ascertain for himself as to their suitability. Mr Morgan after inspecting tho stables, said that he was satisfied with tho accommodation. Tho plaintiff observed that tho stabling of bo many horses would, however, bo an inconvenience to him. Mr Morgan asked Mr Froeman if an agreement m the matter would bo necessary, and tho latter replied m the affirmative. Plaintiff at onco wrote out a memorandum of agreement for tho stabling of Cfty horses, at Is 61 per head por night. He read tho document to tho agent, who approved of tho terms thereof. Afterwards the plaintiff found fivo horses belonging to the troupo tied up to a fence, and on speaking to the groom about tho animals, tho latter gavo him insolence, which slightly provoked him. Plaintiff then impounded tho horses. In croBS-oxamination by Mr Raymond, plaintiff stated that the agent asked him for au agreement, which he immediately wrote out, and handed it to him after reading it. The agroement speciflod Is 6d per head per night. The agent did not sign the document. Plaintiff w&3 quito convinced that tho agreement specified 50 horses. Mr Raymond then produced the agreement, m which no mention of the number of horses was mado. Plaintiff admitted that ho was liable to make mistakes and might, perhaps, havo made a mistake m the wording of tho agreement. He was not to provido food for tho horses. Ho was paid his fee (7s 6d) for impounding the horses. Thomas Pound, who was called as a witness by the plaintiff, said ho remembered tbe conversation between Mr Freeman and the troupo agent. The latter asked the plaintiff for Btabling accommodation for tho horses, and tho plaintiff told him to look at the stables. Witness understood that an ogreement had been mado m tho matter, and that plaintiff was ready to carry it out. George Freeman (son of plaintiff) stated that ho was present when tho agreement was made between his father and tho agent for tho troupo. It was for Is Cd per head por night. The agent approved of the agreement, and for tho purpose of carrying it out witness carted Bevor.il hogshoads of water to tho stables for the animals. In cross-examination by Mr Raymond witness averred that his father read the agreement to the agent, who distinctly Btated that the stables would suit well. For tho defence Mr Raymond Btated that tho plea of his client was a total denial of tho alleged agreement, which could only be regarded as on offer of tho plaintiff to stable the horses at Is 6d per head. No such thing as an agreement was mado at all. For tho defence James Morgan, advanco agent for the St. Leon Troupo, deposed that on his arrival at Waimato he Bpoko to the plaintiff respecting the stabling of tho horses. At the request of tho plaintiff he looked at the Btobleß, and at once saw that they wero not sufficiently commodious for tho horses. Plaintiff said he would charge Is 6d per head per night, and witness observed that ho would submit the charge to Mr St. Leon for his consideration. Tho plaintiff wrote out what ho termed an agroement, and witness remarked that it was not usual with tho troupe to recognise such a document as that written by plaintiff, and that if he liked he (plaintiff) might submit the memorandum as an offer to •tablo tho horses. Tho troupo never paid more than lOd por head per night for horses. Witness nevor regarded tho plaintiff's memorandum as an agreement. The troupo supplied, m every instanco, printed agreements of their own. When an agreement was mado, witness filled the proper form, signed it, and handed a duplicate of it to tho party with whom tho agreement was made. Ho never signed tho memorandum written by tho plaintiff, as it was not an agreomont. Gus St. Leon (one of tho proprietors of the circus), stated that on his arrival at Waimate the plaintiff's son saw him and asked Is 6d per head for the horses, which ho declinod to pay, as being too high a charge. The plaintiff afterwards said that if- the horses did not go to his stables he would impound them. His words were — " If I cannot have you m one way I shall havo you m another." The horses wero tied up to a fence when impounded. The troupe's agent supplied printed forms of agreement' and none else were recognised. Mr Raymond submitted that the plaintiff was not at all consistent m his evidence. At first he mado an assertion m which ho expressed tho utmost confidenco as to tho agreement, but when ho found that the document did not specify any number of horses to be stabled " ho drew iv his horns " and acknowledged that ho was liable to mistakes, Tho agent (Mr Morgan) clearlyshowod that printed forms only were used by tho troupo m all agreements, and not memorandums such as that written by the plaintiff. As to tho impounding of tho" horses, he (Mr Raymond) was perfectly confident that tho_ plaintiff acted illegally m tho matter. Animals could only bo impounded when found trespassing or straying, but not when tied up. TheplaintH !

was suing for 50 horses at Is 6d oach, which was absurd. As the contract waß not carried out, all he was entitled to suo for was simply the profit he would make out of the agreement, provided it was carried out. From o legal aspect, Freeman was not entitled to any damages. He (Mr Raymond) therefore contended that judgment should be given foi tho defendant. The Bench, after characterising the evidence upon the whole as unsatisfactory, gave judgment for the plaintiff for 3s, which amount was paid into Court by tbo defendants, each party to pay his own costs.