RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume I, Issue 77, 7 April 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Thomas Beckham, Esq., R.M.) The usual sitting for the recovery of small debts was held yesterday. JUDGMENTS FOE PLAINTIFF. Band of Hope Gold Mining Company v. Fleming, £6 18s.; Wren v. Lee, £8 6s. ; Wadham v. Lear, £5 9d.; Dornwell v. Smale, £11 Bs. M.; Dornwell v. McLiver, £7 65.: Sheerer v. Alison, £1 10s. ; Burke v. Golden Harp Gold Mining Company £l-± 65.; Golden Crown Extended Gold Mining Company y. Taylor, £2 55.; Golden Crown Extended Gold Mining Company v. Bryson, £4. HA.BE T. DALTON. —THAMES SHARES INVESTMENT ASSOCIATION. Mr. Bennett for plaintiff; Mr. Beveridge for the defendant. This was an action to recover £1 10s., the price of six shares in the above association. Mr. .Beveridge took exception to the particulars furnished as being insufficient. Mr. Bennett said enough appeared on the plaint to inform the defendant what he had to meet. The (act was this Investment Association was illegal—the object of it was a lottery. His Worship decided that the facts should be gone into. Cordelia Hare said that about November Ist she bought three tickets in the Thames Shares Investment Association. Bought three other tickets about three weeks afterwards. Bought the tickets of Mr. W. J. Dalton, who told witness that it was a real hona fide affair. Paid the money the second time she bought tickets to defendant's brother. Asked Mr. Daltou (the defendant) "if the lottery was all right." He said it was, or he would not be secretary of it. The time when the lottery was to take place was to be published in the papers. Went to him when she found the lottery was not likely to take place. Defendant said the Government had put a stop to it, that it was entirely illegal, and that he had nothing more to do with it. Cross-examined by Mr. Beveridge : I risked my money because I had a chance of getting some advantage. I had the same chance as another for a "Long Drive" share. I took six tickets. I thought I should have the same chance as another to get a " Shotorer " I or t^o.

Mr. W. J. Dalton, examined by Mr. Bennett-, deposed that he was an engineer. Acted as secretary to the Thames Shares Investment Association imlil it was stopped. Eeceived from the plaintiff the money for several tickets.

Mr. Beveridge took an objection to further proceeding with the case, as the plaintitf was sueing by her husband, and she was not asked whether she was the wife of the plaintiff', nor whether she was a married woman. His Worship said the objection was a technical one, but fatal nevertheless. Woulrl t it be well to let the case go off on that ground ? It would be sure to come again before the Court. Mr. Beveridge said the case was Mr. "Wvnn's, and being called on at a moment's notice to undertake it, he did not like to abandon any objection, more especially in Mr. Wrnn's absence. Mr. Bennett said the question at issue was of some importance. He would ask that the case should not be allowed to fall through on such an objection. The witness could be recnlled. His Worship: Even if the woman was a femme sole, it wouli upset the whole case. , As the case had gone off on such a fatal point, he did not feel justified in recalling the witness. The plaintiff was nonsuited. HICKS V. CHOCTT7.TT. —SHOOTING A GOAT\ Mr. Beveridge appeared for the complainant, Mr. MacCormick for the defendant. The complainant said he was possessed of a goat on the 14th of March last. Saw it last alive in Crockett's garden. Defendant called complainan f to look at the goat, and then shot it in complainant's presence. The fence round defendant's garden was hardly sixteen inches high. The height has been altered. Witness only measured where the goat went over. It is a scoria fence. It may now be three feet in height. It was a good goat, and gave cream and nothing else1 I have spoken to defendant about the state of his fence.

The defence was that the defendant did not " possess the goat," and that in shooting it he did what lie lawfully might do as it was trespassing in defendant's garden. Cross-examined by Mr. MacCormiek : The complainant could not tell how often the goats were in defendant's garden. Had permission to let his goats go about Mount Eden, but could not say who gave permission. One of the goats wa3 pounded before for this. Could not say whether it was the animal that gave cream. Mr. MacCormiek : Was it nob a " dry goat" when it was shot ? (Laughter.) Complainant: That is foolish j come to the point. Mr. MacCormiek : It goes to mitigation of damages, as a "dry goat" is not worth as ■inch as a "goat that gives cream. (Laughter.) Mr Beveridge : She don't give oream now she is dead. Complainant described his measuring the fence. Mr. MacCorraick read an advertisement, giving notice that all goats, poultry, &c., found in Atkinson Crockett's garden would be destroyed. A witness was called by the complainant, who proved that the fence round Crockett's garden was a scoria wall, maximum height, two feet and a half —minimum, eighteen inches. Crockett had heightened the wall since the goat was shot. The witness further eaid that Crockett's cattle sometimes came into his place. Witness and others were in terror of the treatment they were receiving from defendant. He was lulling everything that came near his place. They might retaliate on the defendant, but they were of a different disposition.

Another witness was also called to speak of Crockett's fence, and said it varied from eighteen inches to three feet six inches. This witness also said that the defendant had complained about witness's goats. Witness had also good occasion to complain of defendant's cattle trespassing on his ground.

Defendant wus Jcalled, and said the fence was a stone wali three feet thick at the bottom, five feet aud a half high on the inside, and four feet and a half on the outside, before portions were knocked down by the encroachments of goats. Witness had ''pounded" the goats twenty times. Witness is a gardener, and was much annoyed by goats. He had paid 303 a chain for making the wall,

while others were paying only 14s. The hill (Mount Eden) was'very "plumb" opposite the Avail, and all goats and cows knocked down the earth and stones to the bottom of the wall. ' Cross-examined by Mr. Beveridge : The witness could not say whether the wall was four feet and a half high from the bottom outside. It was that originally. Could not say there was a coping-stone the whole way. The goats were constantly knocking down portions of the wall. The witness kept goats himself, but kept them tied. Mr. MacCormick put in the Protection of Gardens Act and the Fencing Act (Provincial Council Acts). Samuel Frazer said he built the wall round Crockett's garden, and corroborated defendant's evidence in respect to the original dimensions of it, except that the thickness at the bottom was 2ft. 6in. Witness helped to build the wall and finish it. Coafplainant offered witness the goat if witness would pay the poundage and other expenses, in all about 7s. 6d. Robert Crockett was also examined as to the dimensions of the wall. His Worship did not think the plaintiff had proved his case. The plaintiff appeared to think that the duty with respect to fencing was all on one side—that the whole question turned upon the fencing out. Judgment must pass for defendant.