RESERVED JUDGMENTS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXX, Issue 3505, 23 April 1912, Page 3

RESERVED JUDGMENTS.

MAGISTRATE’S COURT CASES. A FRACTIOUS HORSE. Ml' W. A. Barton, S.M., gave judgment yesterday in the case of Otto Hansen (Mr Burnard) v. Geo. Whitebread (Mr Coleman), a claim for £7 10s, value of a horse. The judgment was as follows: The plaintiff says:—(l) On the 9th day of March, 1912, the plaintiff purchased from the defendant, through Messrs Williams and Kettle, a horse for the sum of £6; (2) the said horse was represented by the defendant as being broken to saddle and harness, but the said horse wtys not as a. factbroken to either saddle or harness; (3) the plaintiff' claims from the defendant the sum of £O, being the purchase price of the said horse, and the sum of £1 10s, the value of harness damaged by the said horse; (4) the plaintiff claims 'in all the sum of £7 10s. There is no doubt from the evidence- that the horse, the subject of this action, was sold at auction with a representation by defendant that undoubtedly meant to convey to the purchaser that it was fit for use in either by any person having ordinary experience in riding and driving. That it- was not lit is beyond all question, as the evidence proves conclusively that.when the horse was being ridden at the sale yards it gave a good' exhibition of buck-jumping and threw its rider, an experienced horseman. That, however, did net deter the plaintiff from buying it, as ho did not require it for saddle work. _ He bought it. took it. heme, and tried it in harness the following day and found it quite unsuitable. He says that- it kicked very badly, broke his liarness, and would not work at all. From personal observation 1 am satisfied that the horse is not properly broken to harness, and is obviously unsaie to drive in an ordinary vehicle with ordinary harness. I am, therefore of opinion that plaintiff is entitled to recover from tho defendant the amount which he paid ior the horse, viz., £O. Judgment accordingly, with costs, £3 7s. There is a claim for £1 Us for damage to harness, but as no evidence lias been given to the. value of tho damage plaintiff is not- entitled to recover. CLAIM FOR GOODS. The Magistrate also delivered uidgnient in the case of Bruce air - Linen and others (Mr Burnard) v. Thos. R Warren (Mr Coleman) and Cyril White. " . ... Mr Barton said:— the plaintiffs claim to recover from the defendants the sum of £4O 9s—£lo 9s for oalance on goods and £BO for packing timber, etc. In reference to the goods defendant Warren claims to have paid for all that were supplied to him personally, and from examination of the hooks, that appears to lie so, - but plaintiffs further claim for goods which they say were supplied to some of defendant- W arren’s workmen, upon defendant's authority- Warren denies absolutely ever having given authority to plaintiffs to supply his workmen with any goods on his behalf, and the only evidence in support of this portion of the claim is that of Mr Samson, who was in charge of the business for a part of the time during which the goods were supplied. - .He says that the defendant gave him instructions m a general way to supply the workmen with stores, but did not say to u hat amount. I cannot believe that defendant Warren ever intended that unlimited credit should be given to his workmen, and in the face of Ins distinct denial that he gate such authority I must disallow tho claim for goods. With reference to the claim for £3O for packing 12 . tons of building material. This claim is greatly exaggerated as the evidence shews'the weight bf the packing to bo only 3 tons 19cwt, and that, at the rate of £2 10s per ton, amounts to £9 17s Gd, instead of £3O as claimed. The only question therefore-remaining is which of the defendants is liable for the amount which I find to be due. Defendant Warren entered mto a contract with Cyril W Into to build a house, and defendant Warren v*as to provide all material-, and also do the carting and packing of the material. Warren says that subsequent xo the contract being entered into he saw the defendant White, and it- was then agreed, that he should arrange tor and let the packing lnmself. Mr White denies this emphatically. Defendant White’s evidence is that he saw Bruce and O’Brien and arranged with them that they were to pack the material in for the house if the contractor (Warron) wished to them for that purpose, but that he did not take the packing out- ot Warren’s hands. - Looking at all the surrounding circumstances am ot opinion that Mr White’s version -of what took place with regard to tno packing is correct. I think that both parties have told me what they believe to bo true, but the contract was entered into, and the conversations took place considerably over two years ago, and after such a lapse of time it is hardlv likely that either side can allow any departure from the 'written contract the evidence must be beyond all doubt. For the reasons o-iven iudgment will be entered _ for the plaintiffs against the defendant Warren for the sum of £9 1/s 6d. with- costs of Court £lO 13s Gd- And judgment for tho defendant White, but under all the circumstances 1 shall not allow him ' any costs.