Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

7 articles on this Page

.it. ""-,"'-, NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS.

TO CORRESPONDENTS.

LOCAL INTELLIGENCE.

TENBY.

PEMBROKE-DOCK.~

fiF A R B E B T H./

CARMARTHENSHIRE ASSIZES.

News
Cite
Share

CARMARTHENSHIRE ASSIZES. [Friday August lOtb.-Before Baron Wilde.] 8KIPP AGAINST WILLIAMS. This was an action in which the plaintiff, who is a horse-dealer, residing at Ross, in Herefordshire, sought to recover the sum of £54, the amount of loss sustained in the purchase of a horse from the defendant, who is a farmer residing at Abercothy, near Carmarthen. It was tried by a specialjury. Mr Bowen and Mr Bishop appeared for the plaintiff, instructed by Mr Minnett, solicitor, of Ross. Mr Giffard and Mr Oliver Powell appeared for the defendant; attorney, Mr George Thomas, Carmarthen. The following gentlemen comprised the special jury —Mr Grismond Philipps, Cwmgwilb Mr J. L. Thomas, Caeglas; Mr W. Rosser, Greenfields, Llanelly; Major Lewes, Llysnewydd Mr W. L. Philipps, Clyngwynne Mr James Morris, New Road, Llanelly;; Mr C. Lloyd, Brunant, Mr J. J. Letcber, Llanelly Mr D. Prosser, Rhosmaen, Llandilo; Mr I. K. Hand, Gordeg, Pembrey Mr F. L. L. Philipps, Havodneddyn; Mr Luckraft, Llanelly. Mr Bishop opened the pleadings, and Mr Bowen briefly stated the facts intended to be proved by the following evidence. I Nathaniel Skipp examined by Mr Bishop: I am a horse-dealer, and reside at Ross, in Herefordshire. I have been a horse-dealer about ten or eleven years, and during that time I have regularly visited Carmarthen. In August, 1862, I heard that the defendant had a horse for sale, and I went, in company with a Mr Hawkins, to the defendant's residence to'see the horse. should think it was the last week in. Julyi.ftr the first week in August when I went there. I wv the horse, and I noticed a blister on one of his knees. After we had ex- amined the horse the defendant accompanied us from his residence out to the turnpike-road, and while on the road I agreed to purchase the horse for sixty guineas if the defendant would consent to keep him for a month. I bought the horse upon a warranty for sixty guineas. That was the first occasion on which I saw the horse. The defendant told me that he had hunted him, and that he sometimes worked on the farm, and that with the exception of his knee he would warrant him sound. Nothing more took place on that occasion. I told the defendant that when I came in August I would take the horse'away, and he agreed to keep him until then. 1 next saw the defendant on the 27th of August. Mr Parry and Mr Hawkins were wilh me. We went to see whether the horse was a roarer or whistler. On the following Saturday the defendant brought the horse to the Boar's Head Hotel in this town. Mr Pftrry and Mr Hawkins were present ontbat occasion. I said to the defendant' Here's your money if you warrant the horse. I don't want your writing. If you say he issound, here's your sixty guineas.' He said, T warrant him perfectly aound and clean, exoept,his knee.' I then paid him the money and sent the horse to Ross. I at once wrote to Cheltenham, to Mr Humphreys, informing him that I had a horse for sale. He came over to Ross to look at the horse. We tried the horse over some fences, and finding that he shied, or did not go straight at tLe fences, we examined his eyes, and we thought they were defective. I sent for Mr Morgan, a veterinary surgeon living at Ross, and after that I sent to Leo- minster for Mr Hall, a veterinary surgeon, and also to Monmouth for Mr Lewis, another veterinary surgeon They all said the horse bad a cataract on each of his eyes. In consequence of what they said I wrote this letter to the defendant "Alton House, Ross, Sept. 13th, 1862. 'Dear Sir,—I am sorry to inform you the bay horse I bought of you is unsound, which I enclose you the cer- tificate of same. 11 am, yours faithfully, 'NATHANIEL SKIPP. Mr Williams.' This certificate from the -surgeon was enclosed r Ross, 13th Sept., 1862. 'Dear Sir,-—I have examined the bay horse, and I find both his eyes diseased, and must have been for some time past, 1 Ydufs respectfully, CHAtHES MORGAN, Veterinary 8urgeon. Mr Skipp, Alton.' In a few days I received this answer frqm the defen- dant:— Abercothy, Carmarthen, 17th Sept., 1863. 'Dear Sir,—'I am sorry to hear that your Veterinary surgeon considers the eyes of the horse which you bought of me to be diseased there was nothing to my knowledge the matter with it except the swelling in one of the fore-legs, which I pointed out to you, and I hope the purchase will turn out to be a profitable one to you. I am, yours truly. 'HERBERT WILLIAMS. Mr Skipp) Alton House, Ross.' There is another letter sent by me to the defendant, which reads: •Alton House, RQ88, Septvl8t>, 1862. 'Dear Sir,-I am in receipt of yours this morning; and as regards the horse I assure you he is of no use to me as he i-, therefore, I will thank you to let me know where I shall, send him to for you. I am sorry to say I could not keep him, as you must be aware unsound horses are of no use to me, if you were even to allow him me at £ 20 therefore, under such Circumstances I hope you will not fail to write me by return post. 'b, 'I am, dear sir, Obediently yours, •Herbert Williams, Esq.* N. SKIPP. In answer to which the defendant wrote:— 'Abiereothy, Carmarthen, 20th Sept.y 1862. 'pear Sir,—In acknowledging the receipt of your letter of the iSth inst., I cannot bat express my surprise that you should ask me to take back the horae, for you I bought it without any warranty, after I had pointed out the swelling in one of the fore-legs, which was the only thing the matter with it, to my knowledge, and you 'l.,c.. I:" s&renfl times -saw and examined it before you took it a Way ior jjaid "fiSr its and when 1 took it to Carmarthen at your request, to meet you, after you had agreed to buy it, I offered to return home with it it you did not like to have it, but you would not allow me to do so. Under these circumstances I think it most unreasonable ior-y&u £ Awta a*k,.me to take.Uack the horse, andcef- tainly I will not do so. I am, dear sir, yours truly, • HERBERT WILLIAMS. 1-Ur Skipp, Alton House.' By the Jtidge: Mr W-iRmma did not give me a receipt. I said, I have two witnesses here, and do not require a receipt.' Examination continued:—I then gave the defendant notice on the 24th September, that unless he came to some arrangement in the course of two or three days I would sell the horse, and hold hira responsible for any loss I might sustain. I had no answer to that notice, ao<* on the 2nd of October I advertised the horse for sale. He was sold by public auction at Ross for £ 17- I wal X.56 19,; 9d out cf pocket altogether. The dmuages are laid at £54. Cross-examined by Mr Giffard When I advertised the horse for sale I called him a good hunter. I wantedadtO make the best of him. I knew him to be a very bad hunter at the time I sold him. I don't know that tntf horse was advertised as sound. I don't know what are the contents of the advertisement. I left all that totny attorney. I believe I have told my attorney what I have proved here to-day. On the occasion of my first visit to the defendant's Hawkins only was with me. Hawkins a man who lives in this town and is very well known. employ him sometimes to purchase horses for me. When he sees a horse he thinks will suit me he lets me know. I pay hira commission generally. I swear hehad nothiOS from this transaction. If the horse had turned out well I would have given him two or three sovereigns. I hafe. employed Hawkins for two or three years, but not ooø" stantly. Perhaps he gives hJs services to others. Parry is a gentleman residing in the neighbourhood of Ross. He is a neighbour of mine. We were at Tenby together. He was at the Boar's Head when the defendant brought the horse there, and I asked him to witness the money paid. lie was in the room. He was not there for the purpose of witnessing the transaction, but being in the room I asked him to witness the money paid. Ile was in the room. He was not there for the purpose ot witnessing the transaction, but being in the room I aflked him to witness the money paid. I have had a good of experience in purchasing horses. 1 bave bought sold a good many horses—a good many hunters. I have not had much experience in law suits. I don't know that I did not issue four suits on the same day as I issued this. I will not swear that I did or that I did n'tt. I will not swear one way or the other. The Judge: We cannot allow you to waste the time Of the Court. Why won't you answer the question? The Witness: I will not swear, my lord, because I do not know.. Cross-examination continued: I have had several transactions in this part of the country. I bought a horse from Mr Lort Phillips. I asked him for something back because the horse did not turn out so well as I oX' pected. I did not sell the horse for twice as much as A gave for him. I also bought a horse from Mr Lewi8« Eendre, I exchanged that horse for another, and lostey the transaction. In consequence of that I had sOtCC money back from Mr Lewis. I do not always get receipt when I pay money. I do not always get a written warranty. If the seller is a respectable man I take his word. I do not always get receipts from respectable farmers. 1 do not get farmers up to Ross to get money from them. Mr Lort Phillips, Mr Lewis, of Hendre, and a Mr Morgan, are the only three who have returned me money; I don't know that any other persons have done 80. Mr Humphreys is a livery-stable keeper I Cheltenham, By Mr Bishop: I sold Mr Lort Phillips's horse out- right; but I swapped Mr Lewis's. Richard Hawkins examined by Mr Bowen: I live Carmarthen. For some time past Lhave been employed by Mr Skipp. Sometime last August I spoke to plaintiff of a horse which I had heard the defendant bad for sale. I went to the defendant's residence with tne plaintiff to look at the horse. There was no one on that occasion except Mr Williams, Mr SfcjHP' myself. Mr Williams asked £ 80 for the borse. said, *1 wittgiVe you £ 60, if the horse is sound.' ..i dant then came down to £ 70 j but Mr Skipp said, I w» not trive you a farthing mere tbau sixty guineas,, and the defendant closed the bargain upon that. By the Judge: The defendant did not doubt its belog sound. Examination continued: I remember that on tbe 27tji of August, Mr Skipp came up from Pembrokeshire. the following Saturday the horse was brought to the Boar's Head. Mr Parry and myself were present the defendant was paid the money for the horse. warranted the borse to be sound. He said, The hors^ is sound and true, as tineas I hold this money in "v hand." Cross-examined by Mr Giffard: I did not hear tu» plaintiff's, evidence. I came into court, but I was no aware that the plaintiff was being examined. lkDb6 t the horse was to be brought to the Boar's Head, |>u» there was no particular day fixed. It was appointed thai I should be at the Boar's Head. It waa also arrange** that Mr Parry should be there. The horse was exaliirled at the Boar's Head. The defendant warranted the h°r8n to be sound when we were on the field, after we had looking at bim. That Was before the bidding. TD warranty also took place at the Boar's Head afterwards. John Parry examined by Mr Bishop: I live near I have been a farmer since the year '26. In the mont of August, last I went to Tenby for a pleasure trip* 1 company with Mr Skipp. We left Ross together. I a'8 accompanied Mr Srkipp from Tenby to Carmarthen or the way back. On the 30th of August I was present at the Boar's Head Hotel. I saw a horse there. 1 Williams, the defendant, gallop him. I was in to breakfast parlour at the Boar's Head that morning* aH Mr Skipp, Mr Williams, and Mr Hawkins were also"1 the room. Mr Skipp had a roll of £ o notes in his » and he said to the defendant, 'Mr Williams, you warrafj this horse sound in every respect but his knee?' Witaj out the slightest hesitation Mr W'illiams said, I "°'f Mr Skipp then gave him the money. I afterwards sft the horse sold at Ross. I believe he was sold for £ 1'' S Cross-examined by Mr Giffard: I went back to with Mr Skipp. We went to Tenby together. I had nefet been in Wales, and I said to Mr Skipp, when you next go there, I will go along with you. We boarded at the BOlilb 8 Head. I heard the defendant warrant the horse to be sound. I was not interested in the matter, therefore did not hear all that toot place. I don't know that defendant said anything eise than the words I have usedh8 Mr Giffard here called his lordship's attention to the plaintiff's declaration, which alleged that the horse sound, whereas it appeared from the case made ottt,1 at the time of sale the horse had a blemished kne% was not, therefore, sound, and submitted that tbeiC88^ was at an end. » The Judge said the plaintiff alleged that the defends sold him the horse under a warranty of soundness, exoef some unsoundness. Mr Bowen gaid that the defendant had not bee# £ led in any way or put to any extra expense in raspeo" plaintiff's declaration, and as he hail made out that. e time of sale the horse had diseased eyes which was unsoundness relied on, he submitted that the case shoU*i go on, and if Mr Giffard's objection (which he consider ipurely a technical one) should prevail, then he muSt as his lordship for leave to amend his declaration.. a Mr Giffard replied that his objection was nitft4>ec'1111. n one, would be a substaative one^ and one could notfb$n&d £ dfe^Midant's jjPWMtoft* ie The '.fudge said ne had formed an otrtcTW, hot would rather, lqt Mr, Bowen, proceed with his (M&rf/ wcfuld take ndte MfGitfayd's objectipn. t (^'dri^yMdrgiti. %jf' Mr ftowdb; Vef^rittit^sii^^oii ^a«isiig;^t' Roas,: XT^vfe'b^fe^,1 four years. On the 12th of September last, T 6x4^ honie 'tor Mtf gkippij 'Phefoartft'iad'A. ^jftar'act 6n the ey I should tay TTET&SEMSE'WTIS of o0 kngw # ^s^^f-tha^-depfiriptiW^red: Xhe •bqrse;*0* hHPter. r j' i •( jaff0& Cross-examined byvMr<GH$ard!; pjfttflrftrt• inflammation of the, lens of the eye.. of from itlfi ^'ppeiaralifie it was I earau <> loi%! 80i<Jing.>o ft'iWse fropi 1ntt'#ta»,lC)^uae pate khown inffimmatidii s{>r'eftd so ultof » blindness m a week. It is very often ILvw.e it' polfl. iDomitkadw,thit(Wgh,foodinii would prod Re-examined: It was not the reault of blindness m a week. It is very often ILvw.e it' polfl. iDanlt fchow. that'lHgh feeding would prod Re-examined: It was not the reault of fio reoently as August lwtv al,r<reoO» Jexamined I am a veterinary practising at Leominster. In September last a eye. a horse for the plaintiff. He had cataract m j> The disease was of long standing; it