MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Waikato Times, Volume 105, Issue 17687, 16 April 1929, Page 8

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

DISPUTE OVER HORSE. FARMER CLAIMS COMPENSATION* LENT TO STOREKEEPER. A claim for the return of a horse valued at £24 belonging to Walter F. Windsor was sought in the Hamilton Magistrate’s Court this morning before Mr Wyvern Wilson, S.M. Mr J. F. Strang appeared for plaintiff, Walter F. Windsor, farmer of Tamahere and Mr E. V. Stace for defendants, Owen and Son, grocers, of Tamahere. Mr Strang explained that the properties of plaintiff and defendants adjoined and in February, 1925 plaintiff had lent the horse to defendants who had used it extensively at various times up to 1926. Defendant, Sidney Owen, had removed the horse from plaintiff's paddock in December 1926, and that was the last seen of it. When defendant was approached on the matter he told Mr Windsor that the horse had been lost, hut would soon turn up again. It was held that it was through defendant’s negligence that the horse has been lost. Walter F. Windsor, farmer, of Tamahere, said his property adjoined Owen and Son’s Store. The horse in dispute had been a good all-round one and when in December, 1924 Owen lost his two horses, he (witness) lent him his. Owen on the first occasion had used the horse for about two months until he purchased another.The horse had also been used by de- j fendant on a number of occasions in! 1925. The last witness had seen of the horse was in December, 1926, when Owen's son had taken the horse from the paddock at the hack of his house. Later defendants told him that the animal had been lost. In March, 1928, he sent defendants an' account for £24, the value of the horse, and again on two other occasions, to which lie received no reply. Albert Joseph Duncan considered the value of the horse to he about £25 and another witness at from £2O to £22. , It was admitted, said Mr Stace, for' the defence, that the liorse ..ad been lent by Mr Windsor. Defendants said, however, that they had not used the': horse after December, 1926. George Sidney Owen, storekeeper' of Tamahere, said that in 1925 they I had two horses for delivery purposes. | They had been lent Mr Windsor’s horse : which was used for a time and then returned to him. Their horse had often been seen straying along the road in company with Mr Windsor’s. Both horses had been lost and steps had been taken to find them. They! had last used plaintiff’s horse in De-i comber, 1926.

Little Knowledge of Value«. Continuing, Sidney Owen said that i the first claim had been received by I them in March, 1928. As far as the ' value of the horse was concerned he j had little knowledge of horse values. ' in answer to Mr Strang witness said they iiad often left their horses feeding on the roadside. lie agreed thatthey had the use of Windsor’s horse throughout 1925 and for a part of 1926. They iiad taken steps to find plaintiff’s horse. In answer to further questioning witness said that he had never asked permission of Mr Windsor to take the horse.

George Owen said he recollected returning the horse to Mr Windsor in September. When he had received the accounts he had taken'no notice of them, considering them nothing but bluff. He considered the horse worth no more than £4 or £5.

In answer to Mr Strang, witness said he thought that plaintiff had far the better of the deal. On week-ends tlie horses were left out on the road. Had Windsor’s horse been lost when under his care he would certainly have paid Mr Windsor for it. There had been considerable unfriendliness between himself and plaintiff for ilia last two years, he added.

Judgment for Defendant. The claim, said His Worship, arose from a state of affairs existing between two parties living next door to each other. The storekeepers had used the farmer's horse with his con* sent, and the onus was on plaintiff'to show that the horse had been lost through defendant’s negligence. There was a conflict of evidence as to the last time the horse had been used. The case for defendant was stronger in connection with the return of the horse. There had been positive evidence submitted for the defence that the horse had been returned.

He would accordingly give judgment for defendant, with costs.