RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’ COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume III, Issue 508, 14 December 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’ COURT.

ASHBURTON— To-Day.

(Before Mr J. Beswick, R.M.) Furious Riding. —Joseph Buchanan and John Allison, were each fined 20s, for furious riding on Ashburton bridge, on the 30th ult. AttEOED Cruelty to a HoitsE.— Leggett was charged with wilful cruelty to a horse. Mr Branson appeared for the accused, and pleaded not guilty. C. VV. Ireland, solicitor, remembered the 3rd of this month, and deposed to seeing a horse between 5 and 6 o’clock on that morning. It was a bay horse, and was in the back yard of Mr Leggett’s house. It’s legs and back were bruised, It had wounds, and was in a disgusting state, and sickening to look at. In consequence of what he saw, he informed the police.—Thomas Prendergast, residing in Ashburton, deposed to seeing the horse in question, and | corroborated the evidence of Mr Ireland. —L. Lewis, veterinary stirgeon, Tiilwald : Had seen the horse. If it were to fall down it might have some trouble to rise, and in attempting to do so might chafe itself and so cause the inflammation from which it was suffering.—Sergeant Felton, said that on the morning of the 3rd inst., he visited the defendant’s back yard, in company with Mr Ireland, and saw the horse. It was in a bad state, and appeared to be in .great pain. Saw Mrs Leggett. She srid her husband Was away from home, and expressed much regret at the state of the horse. The horse was shot the same day.—Mr Branson submitted there was nothing to sustain the charge. No cruelty had been shown. The professional evidence went to prove that the horse once it fell, would easily do itself an injury. But there was positively no evidence of wilful ill-treatment. —The case was dismissed. Abusive Language. —Jesse Hancock, was charged with making use of abusive language to Charles Smith. This case arose out of a neighbor’s quarrel, in which a pet lamb was the cause of trouble.—His Worship dismissed the case, the defendant to make good the damage done to the complainant’s property by the lamb. His Worship also cautioned the defendant to be careful as to the language he used. The defendant remarked that the plaintiff had made a “ false statement.” civil cases. Orr and C». v. P. Good.—Claim Ll2 Is Id. Judgment for Lll Is lOd.—A. Orr v. W. Smith.—L3 12s 9d. Judgment for amount and costs. —Woolley v. P. Grant. —L33 13s 9d. Mr Hranson for plaintiff; Mr Crisp for defendant. This was a claim for balance due for work and labor done, to wit, certain farming work at the defendant’s place near Chertsey. Judgment for L 23 13s 9d, and costs.—S. Lowe v. t). Buckley.—Mr Crisp for plaintiff; Mr Wilding for defendant.—Adjourned, at the request of both parties, for one month, in order that an amicable arrangement might be arrived at if possible. Mr F. P. O’Reilly v. M'Cavey.— Claim LlB 6s 4d. This was a claim for

professional assistance rendered by the plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff for Ll 6 10s Od and costs. The Court then rose.