RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Western Star, Issue 66, 13 February 1875, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

» Wednesday, February 10. (Before His Worship the Mayor, and H. Lyon,

Lsq., J.P.)

Campbell v. Pattison.—Claim £9 10s for repairing a boat. Tins case had been adjourned from the previous week to enable Mr Potts to appear, who, the defendant alleged, had ordered and agreed to pay for the repairs.—Mr Potts on being called, stated he had hired a boat from the defendant, and while bringing firewood down the river the boat got damaged. Ho saw Mr Pattison and had a conversation regarding the smash. He advised him to get Campbell to repair the boat, but never gave him an order to do the work.—Elizabeth Pattison, wife of the defendant, remembered when she was informed of the boat being smashed, of sending for Mr Potts and asking him what he was going to do about it. He said he would get the boat repaired, and afterwards came back and told them he would get Campbell to do the repairs. Recollected Campbell coming to their house to see what was to be done to the boat. Heard her husband tell plaintiff that he would pay £2 15s towards the repairs, and that he (plaintiff) would have to look to Potts for the rest, to which he appeared to agree. She was standing at the kitchen door while the conversation was going on, and plaintiff made no objection in her hearing to the arrangement. —The plaintiff stated the defendant gave him an order to repair a boat, and brought the boat to his workshop with his (defendant’s) own horse and dray. No reference whatever was made to Mr Potts in the matter.—'The Bench said that from the evidence before thorn, they could not do otherwise than give a verdict for the plaintiff, but at the same time they would inform t the defendant that he had grounds for an action ‘ against one of the parties, but they were not prepared to say who. Judgment was therefore given for. full a,mpun,t claimed, with £i 9s costs. (Before H. Lyon and J. Petchell, Esqs., J.P.’s,) Trail v. Small. —This was an action to get a bay horse returned, which plaintiff alleged he had lent to defendant on the 10th November, 1871, in exchange for a black horse which had been since sent back to defendant. The plaintiff stated that on the Ist Novenber he and defendant were going down the tramway together when a conversation arose about horses. Ho had a fast horse, and de-. fondant had a slow one. To suit the work he was doing and his other horses, he asked defendant for a loan of bis slow horse, named Jimmy, for a few weeks in exchange for his horse Punch, to which he consented. There was some talk of a “ swop,” but it was only on condition that he got £lO to boot with the other horse, and no bargain was made. Ho sent defendant’s horse back on the 6th January, when-ho refused to give him back the horse he (plaintiff) had lent him. He seat defendant a notice then that ho would charge him €1 a day for every day h.is horse was detained after that date.—William Hitchcock stated that lie was instructed by the plaintiff on the 6th of January, in whose service ho was at that time, to tak’i defendant’s horse up to his (defendant’s) place and put it in his stable. He took a note to Mr Young, who was there at the time. Mr. Young after r.?a ling the note said ho had nothing to do with the horse, he- should have given it to Mr Small, an 1 turned the horse out of the stable again.—M>* Uodgshon, partner of the plaintiff, was called, who stated that he had been present at several conversations between plaintiff and defendant, but heard; nothing about an exchange of horses. Ho un ieratood they were, only lent, as W!\s done very frequently in their work.--./. L. McDonald stated that on the 20th November, Trail, of the firm of Dodgshcn and Trail, came, and asked kirn to. endorse a, certain bill of exchange for him, for the security of which he was to hold the receipt of sale of a bay horse named Punch, which he agreed to do. * The plaintiff afterwards told him that ho had lent the horse to defendant for a few weeks in exchange for a black horse, but he would not sell without his (witness’s) permission.-- Caleb Small said About the end of October he agreed with plaintiff to “ swop” a black horse fora bay horse named Punch. Xfe was to be on equal terms and there was nothing said about a loan. Plaintiff came to him some time after and asked him to give him £lO besides the horse, which lie refused to do.—J. P, Young said ho was present during a conversation between plaintiff and defendant, and distinctly heard plaintiff agree to swop his bay horse for the black one, level. \\ as at the stable at the. time.. Hitchcock' brought back the black horse, and turned him out out of- the stable because ho had no, room, for him.—Several other witnesses were called, but np.evidcuce was elicited which had any bearing on, the case.—-The Ernch, in giving judgment, said a great deal of evidence bad been heard, but verv little light had been thrown on the case. There had been nothing ia the shape of writing be twee,: the parties, to show what transactions Had been entered into about the horses. They would therefore order that the defendant return the plaintiff his horse. Defendant paying costa of Court, 265. Trail v Small. —Claim £2O, for.illegal detention of bay horse, mentioned in. previous case. The Bench said that the case would be taken in consideration with the former one. A good deal of liability attached to,both parties indhe case, and judgment'would be given for the defendant, with costs, £1 10s. Thursday, Feb. 11. (Bpfore John Turnbull, Esq,, R.M., and J. L. M‘Donald, J.P.) J. Wilson and Co. v. N. JVF Loan.—Claim "of £io 0s 4.1., on dishonoured bill. Judgment for amount claimed, with costs £2 3s.