The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-03-29 00:00:00

AN " INFANY," AND HIS HORSES.

The case of "Haines v. Guthrie," which had occu-
pied the Court for two days, was resumed on Satur-
day, before Mr. Justice Grove and a special jury, in
the Queen's Bench Division. It is an action brought
by Mr. Frank Golb7 Haines, the proprietor of the
Royal West-end Riding School, in Seymour-place,
Bryanston-square, to recover from the defendant,
Mr. Charles James Seton Lester Guthrie, the price of
certain horses, namely, £367 for two black geldings,
£420 for two bay geldings, and £157 for a cob. The
defence was that the defendant—who inherited a large
property from his father, a General in the Indian ser-
vice—at the time was a ward in Chancery with an
allowance of £lOOO a year, and was a minor when he
purchased the horses sued on. Further, that the
prices charged for the horses were extravagant, they
being warranted as sound, whereas they were not so;
and the defendant made a counter-claim for £250 as
money he had paid to the plaintiff for hones returned
to him.

This morning Mr. M'lntyre replied on the whole
case, after which
Mr. Justice Grove summed up, and remarked on
the enormous length the case had run to. A judge
could not stop evidence, or say when enough evi-
dence had been adduced; all he could do was to sub-
mit. This was getting worse and worse, and the
courts were becoming rapidly blocked with business.
He thought cases might be presented to juries in
shorter compass, as it was a great hardship on men of
business to keep them away from their other avoca-
tions, and it was melancholy to think how long it
took to decide cases. Here, he thought, the
jury would have no sympathy for either party.
The defendant was young, and apparently living
recklessly. While, again, though the plaintiff
was entitled to get what price he could for
his horses, yet this excessive profit ought not to be
encouraged or commended. He thought the defendant
had been weak, and, perhaps, with increasing years he
might overcome his taste for horseflesh, and turn to
something more useful and enduring. The jury should
look at the matter in a dry, businesslike manner.
His lordship then explained the law as to the contracts
of infants and the Infants' Relief Act, 1874, and care-
fully read over the evidence to the jury. In conclu-
sion, his lordship left the following questions to the
jury. Their answers are appended.-1. Was the
purchase and sale of the horses, any and which of
them, made before May 20, 1883, when the defendant
came of age? Answer.—All. 2. Were the horses
or any of them delivered to the defendant before May
20, 1883? Answer.—All. 3. If the defendant was
an infant at the time of the purchase and sale, were
the horses, or any of theta "necessaries ?" Answer—
None. 4. Did the defendant make a new contract for
the horses after he came of age? Answer: No. 5'
Was there a representation made by the plaintiff at
the sale as to the soundness of the horses, and were
they then so sound? Answer: They were sold as
sound, and (after some discussion) they were then so
sound. As to "necessaries," his Lordship said tath
at first sight the word seemed simple enough, but ex-
travagant interpretations has been put on the word by
the good nature of juries, who did itiit" like to see,
tradesmen go unpaid. This, however, had been some
checked by the discretionary power to the Courts
to control them, as exercised in "Ryder v. Womb
well."

On the above findings the defendant succeeded as
to the majoritya the claim for the price of the horses,
£731 10s. ; but there remained some items of livery
charges for horses at the plaintiff's stables and for
shoeing after he came of age, and on this the plaintiff
obtained a verdict for ..E4 16s. and judgment, but
without costs. As to the counter-claim for the £250
paid to the plaintiff by the defendant on account on
April 26, 1883, this was claimed on the basis of a
breach of warranty and fraudulent representation;
but, as this was negatived by the jury, the plaintiff
bad a verdict and judgment also as to that, but again
without coats. His Lordship said he thought both
parties were to blame, and he could not commend
either of them. There would be a certificate for a
special jury.