Image TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage Tile
Image size: 4608x6656 Scale: 35% - PanoJS3
Page overview thumbnail

Article text

SUPREME COURT-
Small Debts J urisdiction.
Before His Honor Judge Dobson.
Tm s Day.
A number of undefended eases were
dealt with in the usual manner.
Davies v. Blake.—This was an action
brought by Mr. Charles 12. Davies to recover
£32 from the defendant, the amount
of damages alleged to have been done to
the plahitiiPa horses while under the cilre
of the defendant, a licensed victualler, at
Botbwell. Mr. Thomas SliGehy appeared
for plaintiff, and Mr. A. I. Clark for Die
defence. Charles Ellis Davies, being sworn,
deposed that on the 20th October last, Die
day of the Dothwcll races, he left his horses
in the stables of defendant and under his
charge. On returning to the stables some
time afterwards, he found that an entire iu
the care of defendant was in the same
stables, and hod frightfully mutilated his
(plaintiff’s) rnarcB, their necks being
bitten ana injured. He had to i-etum
to Hobart that night, And was obliged
to hire oilier horses, besides arranging for
the surgibal treatment of his horses. He
considered that such and other expenses,
and the depreciation in the value of his
horses, totalled damages to the extent of
about £50. Cross-examined by Mr. A. I.
Clark—Plaintiff was aware that the stallion
belonged to Mr. Webb. Valued his horses
at £80 before they were mutilated. Had
given about £50 for the pair. John Cooper
deposed that lie was in the employ of
defendant on the occasion when Mr. Davies
arrived. He took charge of the horses.
Informed Blake of their arrival. He knew
that defendant expected „the horses, and
bnd arranged for two stalls to be set
apart for them. On returning from the
races he found tlmt the stallion had
got into thu same stall ns the ponies, and
had bitten them about the neck. Crossexamined
by Mr. Clark — The injurie
seemed to be only skin-deep. If tb
horses had been turned out the injuries
would take about a month to heal. The
stallion was kept in a box, which was a
good substantial one, with walls about
8cveu feet high, and a strong gate. The
entire was under the charge of Mr. Webb’i
groom. John George "Wheatley deposed
he was employed by Mr. Davies to take
charge of his horses in October last, lie
found them severely injured and bitten
from the shoulder up tn the neck.
They were constantly under his eare,
for throe months. Cross-examined by Mr.
Clark.—The injuries were very severe.
Charles Longman deposed that he was
plaintiff's conchman. In October Inst he
brought plaintiff’s horses homo ; they wen
iu a very bad condition and remained s<
for about two months. Mr. A. I. Clark addressed
the jury for the defence, submitting
mh’.r alia that his cliout was not guilty
of auy gross negligence, and that the sum
of about £13 would fully recoup plniuliff for
the losses sustained. Joseph Blake, laic
licensee of the White Hart Hotel, at Botliwell,
deposed that ho was licensee of that
house in October last, when plaintiff’s horses
were stabled there. The general rule in
connection with the stabling of stallions
was that the owner's groom had the entiv
management of them. Mr. Webb's stallion
was securely stalled, and could not have
got out of liis box by liimself. William
Brown, on oath, said that in October last
he was travelling with "Webb's stallion
aud put up at defendant’s inn. Ho (witness)
was supposed to have the management
of the entire. On the race day he left Die
stalliou soeurelystatled aud weut to the races.
When he relumed he found that plaintiff's
mares had been injured by tlie defendant's
horse, but did not think the injuries very
severe. The jury were then addressed by
the counsel for the plaintiff aud for the
defence. His Honor summed up in favour
of the plaintiff, stating that the law is
that an inn-kcepcr is responsible for the
goods of his guests. The jury, after 2u
minutes deliberation, returned a verdict
for the plaintiff for the full amount
claimed. The jurymen who tried this case
were Messrs. .1. R. Fryer, C. Prolymau,
and J. Mnefarlaue.
[Left. Sitting.]
$