RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Friday.

Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 417, 12 May 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Friday.

[Before Thomas Beckharo, Esq., E.M.] Judgments fob Plaintiffs.—A. Fraaer v Carlyon, £12 ; Eyro v. Dyer, £20 ; Manuring v. Hooper, £3 lbs 5d ; Berry v. Freely, £5 ; Binney v. Angus, £9 Is ; Tatty and others v! Robson, £5; Trustees of Hunter v. Atkvns' £5 10s 5d - Watt v. Bright, £2 3s ; Arnold v! GHover, £5 13a 3d ; Poaseniskie v. Barron £9 Us 6d. Defended Oases. Woods v. Fbeer.- Claim, £5. Mr J B. Russell for the plaintiff; Mr. Wynn for the defence.—The plaintiff deposed that he' war formerly the owner of a pointer dog, which died suddenly in November, 1869. The value of the dog was £5 ; had been offered £3 for it. It was between five and six years old' It was not trained.-Mrs. Wood deposed that on the day the dog died she saw Mr. Freer, who lived within twelve yards of her. He passed her house and then came back and stood inside his own door. Witness then went out and saw her own dog lying in the gulter struggling, and Mr. Freer put on such a look that she was sure he had poisoned it. The dog died a few minutes afterwards. Ten minutes before that the dog was alone and well. There was no one in the street but Mr. Freer. She said to him that she should like to know who had poisoned the dog. Mr. Freer did not answer but went into his house. About a month ago she learned that it was Mr. Freer who had poisoned the dog, and she then brought the

present charge.—Timothy Reardon deposed that he was formerly in the employ of Mr. Freer. Knew the dog in question. Ifc was poisoned by Mr. Freer. The poison -was put into a bit of meat. Witness bought the poison by his orders from. Mr. Manning, the chemist. He poisoned the dog because it used to annoy him at night by barking. Mr. Freer took the meat out of his bouse and threw it to tho dog, who immediately eat it, and died in a few minutes afterwards. Mr. Freer, after walking along a Bhorfc distance, returned to the stable, and said the dog wouldn't annoy him any more. The poison was strychnine.—ln cross-examination by Mr. Wynn the witness admitted that while living with Mr. Freer he had been convicted of stealing from hia house, but he was not guilty. He was convicted of stealing a belt. He gave information about the poisoning of the dog after he came out of gaol, where he was sent for a month. He did not volunteer the statement, but was asked about it by the last witness. He would swear he (witness) did not poison the dog himself. Mr. Manning did not ask him what he wanted the poison for.—Mr. Manning was called, but declined to give his evidence unless his expenses were first paid.—Mr. Russell declined to pay him beforehand, and said that his evidence could be dispensed with, and Mr. Manning left the Court.-A witness was called to prove the value of the dog.—This was the case. —Mr. Wynn in addressing the Court said that tbe oniy evidence was that of a, convicted felon, who had doubtless trumped up his story out of malice to Mr. ireer, who was entitled to a judgment.— The Court thought there was sufficient evidence for the defendant to answer the case.— Judgment must pass for the plaintiff for £3 and costs, amounting to £3 Is 6d. Jones y. Babnett and Lety.—Mr Wynn for the plaintiff, Mr. J. B. Russell for the defence. The pkintiff did not appear and a nonsuit was recorded.

Shaepe v. Tilslex. —Claim £6 Is 6d money lent. Mr. Matthews for the plaintiff, Mr. Wynn for the defendant.—The money was alleged to have been lent to the defendant's wife. The defendant refused to pay it, and said he knew nothing about it. The wife admitted she had on one occasion borrowed £1 of the plaintiff without her husband's consent, but had paid it back the n»xt day. She deni.d most positively that she had ever borrowed £s.—Mr. Matthew argued at length upon the plaintiff's evidence, and contended that the £5 had been advanced to defendant's wife to buy geese with.—Some amusement wus created by the cross fire that took place between Mr. Wynn and Mr. Matthews on the subject of these geese (admitting that they were bought.) Mr. Matthews contended that they were necessaries, as Christmas was coming on, while Mr. Wynn was inclined to doubt the possibility of two persons eating £5 worth of geese even on a Christmas Day. But there was no evidence to show that there were any geese in the case, and besides, the Court reinurked that men had no right to lend money to married women without their husbuads*. A nonsuit was recorded.

Chapmin v. Bloomfield.—Claim, £3 13s. for work and labour done. After evidence had been given, a nonsuit was recorded. The Court then adjourned.