MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1408, 16 November 1886, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

ASHBURTON—TD ESD AY. [Before Mr H. C. S. Baddeley, R.Mj CIVIL CASES. Ross v G. P-rkin. claim £l3.—Mr Purnell fur plaintiff for plaintiff for the amount claimed and c s s V Ray v Berg— ln this case, in which judgement had been g.ven for p.ainoff OD a previous Const day, Mr Cutis bert son now, on bsha’f of '-ho defendant, applied fora reheating— Mr Pcrneil op puied the application. — Application re used. Ashburton Guardian t orapany v C oksen, claim £8 13s. Mr Purcell for plaintiffs, Mr Crisp for defendant. This was a case in which the old Gu/trdicin Company sued the defendant for £8 13', value of work done. The defendant filed a se -off exceeding in amount the claim. Evidence »as taken at length with regard to tbe items tf ;ha claim ard set-off The Magistrate considered the net-off had not been proved, and gave judgment for the plaint ff for the amount claimed and costs. JUVENILE OFFFNDFRS Three Tit le boy?, apparently about eight years of age, were charged with a breach of tbe Public Works Act fergant Fulton applied for an adjournment till Friday week. It appear-d that the boys had thrown a truck off the Railway Hue—a ▼ery serious offenca and one liable to a penalty of £SO. It had come to the ears of the polios that the principal culprit, a boy of about 15, was still at large, and it was necessary that an adjournmae-t should be granted in order that he m gist be brought before the Court —Adj nrmcent granted. FURIOUS DRIVING F-r this offence A. Fr sby was fined 10j and costs. civil CASES. Digby v Lmgity, claim £20 —Mr Wilding for plain iff, Mr White for defendant. —This was ra'l.er a singular case, being an action brought for thu recovery ot £2O, the va'uo of a hor;e alleged to have been kil> d by the deb n dant who, while endeavoring tj muss the animal to go, hit it a violent blow o>> the head with a thick stick, killing it instantaneously.—Mr Digby, the plaintiff said that on October 4 he aud two others drove out to Dromore. The animal he was driving was a valuable mire. Mtt Langley on the road Witness and his companions were Invited into Lmglev’s paddock to exercise some dogs they had with them. When witness wanted to drive home the horse did not start freely. He asked Langley to pash the wh-el After some lime, and after several requests, witness gave the whip to Langley, at the same time saying that if the mare was hit witness did not think she would move at alb Langley bit the animal two or three times and tiien the lash came off the handle of the whip. The horse was gradually neari; g the gate—moving a few yards at intervals —when Langley went to the fence and came back with a thick gorse suck Baying be would “make the go. ” Witness cid not asked hm to get the stick. Langley hit the mare a alight blow and she progressed much the game as before—going twenty or thicy ya ds and then stopping. This went on tM the gate was reached when the mare again came to a standstill. Langley, who had been followl g the trap, then came up and hit the mare a very violent Mow on the head with the result that che animal dropped down deid. All the blows that Langley struck lighted about the mare’s ears. The first two blows wjie reasonable ones bnt ;ha last was dealt with ail the force that Langley, who is a powerful mm, could bring to bear. When the animal fell witness got out of the trap and took off the harness. Langley raid the m -re would be all right in-a mime; that it was only stunned, and that he bad often Been horses in a like condition The mare did not recover however. About a week subsequently witness saw Langley and asked him if he would pay anything towards the loss witness had sustained. Witness considered tbe affiir was an tcc;dent and for that teason he was willing to compromise with Langley for half the value of the mare—Tbe witness was crossexamined by Mr White at considerable length.—R. Duncan was in corap tr y with the last witness on the occa»i u of the mare being billed. He saw Laugh y hit the horse three times with a stick, the first two were light mis ; 'he third a very heavy one. Heazd Digby tell Langley to be quiet and the mate would go presently Never heard Digly ask Langley to strike the. mate; if be bad done so witness would have heard him.—By the Court: The stick produced was not a proper one with which to strike a horse. —W. Wilkie was with the last two witnesses st Dromore when the mare was til ed. He corroborated the evidence previously given.—J. Lewis, veterinary surgeon, said that shout three months ago he made an examination of the mare referred to. She seemed perfectly sound and was worth from £lB to £2o—By the Court; It is not wise to hit a horse about the head.— This was tbe plaintiff’s case, and Mr White opened the case for tbe defence, He said It wonld be shown that the horse was killed unintentionally and that it was Struck at the plaintiff's request. He called the defendant, T. Langley, who said that on October 4;h. Digby and two others came to his place. When Digby wanted to leave the pxddock, tbe horse would not move. He asked witness to push tbe wheels and st (tied floggi -g tbe horse. The animal kck .d every time she was struck, and Digby gave the whip to witness, telling him to •‘touch her no," Witness did so, and the horse went on for thirty yards and then stopped. Digby asked witness to bit the horse again. Witness did so, and the lash came off the handle. Digby then told witness to get a stick from the hedge. Witness got a stick, but remarked that it was rather a large one, Digby said “Never mind ; knock —— out of her.” Witness hit the mare on the ear aud she went on for twenty cr thirty yards. Digby called oat to witness to give her another and he did so. Finally she stopped at the water race, at the gate. Witness, at Digfay’s request, hit her once on the ear but she did not move He was making another blow when the mare moved her head and the blow struck her belting tho ears and she fell down. Previously to witness getting the stick Duncan offered to change horses with Digby, sr-ying that it was a pity that the latter should knock hia horse about Digby replied that it did not matter, that he would rather kill the mare than lei her go oct of tte abaft'. Witness estimated the value of the mere at about £B. Witness did nothing to the horse except w th the knowledge of Digby and with his permbsion —'J be witness was cross-examined by Mr Wilding’—A. J. Kelly knew the mare which had been killed and estimated her value at £9 or £lO, It was nut a wise thing to hit a horse on the head. Witness had sen It, demonstrated that a blow which smick the head of a horse at the bo'trm of the ears was highly dangerous, —G Werner estimated the value of the mare which had been killed at £lO or £ll. It waa a very eaey thing to knock a horse down by a blow on the beadr Witness had seen a horse killed with a blow of a fiff,— This Traa the gase for the defence.—Mr Wilding recalled R. Dunoon, who said that when he offered to change horses with D.Oby he did nos hear Digby say that he would sooner kill the mare than let her out of the shafts. Witness did not bear Digby atk Langley to ttrike the horse When the last blow was struck, had any such rt quest been made witness would have heard It*—M. Digby, recalled, denied having said that he would sooner kill the mare than let her go cut cf the shafts. He did not ask Langley to hit the horse.—By Mr

I Whi'r : He did not object to Langley hi:;.! g the noise Ho did no: rsk \v to got tLe sbck, nor did he mike any o> j sc* ton to bis striking the horse with 1 , trusting to h s judgment to strike the horse properly.— VV. Wilkie, recalled, said that no words were spoken at the time the horse wrs killed.—J. Lewis was recalled by the Coint, and examined at to the tfleet a blew, such as had been deso’ibed by the various witnesses, wo-;Id hsve.—Can ael on both sides addressed the GVurt at grert length reviewing the evide: cs minutely. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £lO. [Left sitting.]