THE WRONG HORSE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3299, 18 August 1911, Page 6

THE WRONG HORSE.

COUNCIL EMPLOYEE’S MISTAKE. PECULIAR CASE AT COURT. A case possessnig some unusual feat*--ures .was investigated before Mr W. A. Barton, S'.M.,' in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. William Bruce proceeded against Frederick T. Lancaster, for damages amounting to £3 for working his buggy horse and being responsible for the loss of a cover. Mr L. T. Burnard appeared for defendant, and Mr Finn for the plaintiff. His Worship drew attention to- the fact that defendant had paid £1 into court, and asked Mr Finn if he desired to go on with the case. Mr 'Finn said that lie had not been notified that any amount had been paid into court, • and he wished to proceed with the case. , , , . William Bruce stated that lie'was the owner of a buggy mare winch lie kept in a paddock near his house- On the evening of June IT'he fed and li-er -and' nut her in the paddock and locked the gate. In going to fetch her the next morning he observed that tlie fence was broken near the gate and the mare was gone. He looked round the town, thinking that the hors© might have got out and wandered away. He then informed the police that his horse had been taken away, and he up various hotelkeepers about the.horse, which was well known in the district. About 6 p.m. that evening the defendant came to plaintiff’s door and asked if the horse he was driving belonged to plaintiff. Defendant explained that when lie got up that morning at '4 o’clock his horse was not in his paddock. He had seen plaintiff’s horse across the road and. thought that it was his own. The cover whs' missing and when witness asked defendant where it- was the latter - had said that there was no cover on the horse when lie got it. The value of the cover was £1 . Cross-examined by Mi- Burnard, w lines said that he was aware that defendant was an employee of the Borough Council. He was not aware of the fact that the Council kept a horse suitable for driving. He was pot prepared to accept tlie explanation that the defendant had taken his horse by mistake. He liad never received a telephonic mesage from defendant regarding the horse. Mr Burnard contended that the incident arose from a bona fide mistake. The defndant, . who said he w r as an employee of the Borough Council, deposed that on 12tli June lie was employed in constructing a chimney at Gentle Annie. He was directly under Mr Williamson on that- date, and he was told that he could either ride or drive out to Gentle Annie. Mr Williamson had pointed out a horse and as it was necessary for him to leave town early in the morning he went to the Borough Council yards on the afternoon of Sunday, June lTth, and took the horse and buggy up to his section, which is situated on the corner of Roebuck and Aberdeen roads. He knew very little about horses. He rose at 3.40 a.m. on the Monday morning, and the horse was missing. It was slightly moonlight, and he saw what he took to he the Council horse across the road. Fie concluded that if the horse could get over the fence surrounding his section it could get over another. He caught the horse and harnessed it to to the buggy and left for Gentle Annie. AYhen he arrived at Gentle Annie he discovered that the horse w-as not tlie one belonging to tlie Borough Council. He at- once tried to ring up the Council Chambers, but- he was unable to get on to theip, it being too early. Returning to town in the evening no made certain inquiries which led him to discovering that the horse , belonge 1 to plaintiff. He drove to plaintiff’s house and had a conversation with plaintiff about the matter. Plaintiff asked what defendant intended to do with the horse and the latter replied that as he had to take the buggy back to the Council yard he -would take the- horse and feed it. This he did, and later returned the horse to Mr Bruce. The plaintiff then asked him what- he had done- with the cover, and witness had replied that it did not have a cover on, and that ne would not have made the mistake had it had a cover on. To Mr Finn: When he was putting on the harness he had not paid attention to the sores on the horse. To His Worship: He was positive that there w r as no cover on the horse when lie took it. Arnold Williams, engineer in the employ of the Borough Council, said that he had charge of the department in which defendant was employed on June 12th. He had instructed defendant to proceed to Gentle Annie on that day. Witness had been given the alternative of riding or driving, and witness had pointed out two hordes in the Council paddock, either of which he could take. He did not think that the defendant knew- much about horses. On the Monday. when the defendant was supposed to go .to Gentle Annie, witness had found the horse defendant was to have taken standing under some trees outside tlie Council yards. Mr Finn submitted that the defendant had got up in the morning, and finding his horse gone, had taken the first one he saw, irrespective of its ownership.

His Worship said that the question was whether the mistake was a bona fide mistake, and he was of opinion that it was. Judgment would be for plaintiff 'for the amount paid into Court.