RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 64, 21 February 1880, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

■ i ASHBURTON— Thursday, Feb. 19. (Before Mr. F. Guinness, R. M.) The Springfield Coal Co. v. W. H. Zouch.- —Examination, on the application of defendant, of defendant’s witnesses under “ The Resident Magistrate’s Evidence Act, 1870.” Mr. Branson for the defendant. No appearance for plaintiffs. Joshua Tucker—l am agent for Messi’s. Montgomery and Co. at Ashburton. The firm of Montgomery and Co. have had dealings with the Springfield Coal Co. Limited, plaintiffs in this action.... Our firm have received coal from the plaintiffs It was consigned by them from the Sheffield railway station in trucks to us. They have always charged us with five (5) tons in each truck. We have weighed trucks from time to time, but not every truck. Of the trucks which we have had only one was over the weight. The others were all under weight, from two to five hundred weight short. One that we received on the 28th Oct. was 14 cwt. short. There was particular care taken to ascertain accurately the weight of this truck. The price we paid for this coal at the railway station at Sheflied was 18s. per ton. The freight from Sheffield to Ashburton was Bs. sd. per ton. Examination adjourned till 24th inst. Friday, Feb. 20. (Before Dr. Trevor, J.P.) CRUELTY TO ANIMALS. John Boulger was charged with cruelty to a horse. Win. Rouse, constable, stationed at Rakaia, sworn, said —From information I received I went to Mr. William Saunders’ farm at Rakaia on the 13th, and saw a horse which had been badly beaten about the head, apparently with a chain. The horse was bleeding from the head and nose, and the skin was torn off at the eyebrows, I don’t think the horse could travel to here. By accused—l did not see you kick the horse, or strike it with a chain The mark on the back is not a saddle mark : it has been made by a chain, and is a recent injury. R. Darrick, sworn—l live near Rakaia. I saw accused on the 10th inst. He came to my place for a machine. When he yoked his horses to a machine, one of them would not start, and he took it out of the harness and beat it with a plough chain. He then put it in the harness, and after it would not start the second time, he again took it out and beat it with the chain. He then put another horse in the machine, and allowed the beaten one to follow. By accused—l saw the mare on the following day, and saw marks about her eyes but none on her body. By the Bench—The eye-brows were very much knocked about and swollen. The mare was able to walk. Samuel Loy—Defendant came to take a reaper from me on the 10th, and one of the mares would not start. He flogged her with a plough chain twice. I again saw her on the 12th, and she was hanging her head down and looked bad. By the Bench —The mare was very badly treated. Accused did not strike her about the head when 1 saw £ him strike her. Accused said he had struck the mare a few times' with the chain. The mare was in good health and able to work. She got the injuries to her head by hitting it against the machine pole. The Magistrate said the horse had been treated in a brutal manner. Had it been proved that he had struck the mare about the head ho would have fined him veiy heavily. The penalty he was liable to was L2O, but as it was only proved he had struck it about the body he would give him the benefit of the doubt respecting this, and only fine him 40s. and costs, L2 4s. Cd.