RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Cromwell Argus, Volume IV, Issue 182, 6 May 1873, Page 6

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday, May 1, 1873. (Before IF. Lawrence Simpson, Esq,, 8.M.) D. TAGGART V. R. H. WALLACE, The plaintiff, a hotelkeeper and trainer of raceliorses, sought to recover the sum of £l3 16s. Trom the owner of the race-horse Boomerang, for certain expenses incurred in entering the said liorse-for various races at Cromwell and Queenstown. The matter in dispute was, whether or not the defendant gave an expressed or implied •consent to the horse being entered and run at the Wakatip Races, held on the 16th and 17th ■January last. The defendant admitted having agreed with Taggart that the latter was to feed and train the horse for the races at Cromwell, the defendant paying entries and qualifications and the winnings, if any, to be divided between owner and trainer. But defendant denied that ■the agreement had any reference to the Queenstown Races. When the list of nominations was published, Mr Taggart’s name appeared as owner of Boomerang ; but Taggart affirmed that it was a mistake on the part of the Secretary. After a tedious hearing, Mr Wilson, on behalf of the plaintiff, asked and obtained permission to have the Secretary’s evidence taken at Queenstown ; and to allow time for that purpose, the case was adjourned for a fortnight, on payment of £3 expenses. S. H. JENKINSON V. T, MARSH. An action to recover £5, alleged value of a dog -shot by defendant on the 11th of last month. Mr Allanby, for defendant, pleaded not indebted. The circumstances, as stated in evidence were these Plaintiff is one of the Argus employes, ■and defendant is a fanner. On Good Friday a number of persons went to an island in the ’Clutha, about eight miles above Cromwell, for the purpose of hunting and shooting wild rabbits. On the way to the island, plaintiff’s dog overtook and followed William Howe, (also an -employe at the Argus office), who was one of those that joined in the hunt. A solitary sheep, ■claimed by defendant as his property, was running on the island on that day • and the defendant chanced to be there also. The dog chased the sheep, and the latter swam across an arm of the river on to the Mount Pisa Run. Seeing the -sheep had got away, defendant fired two shots at the dog and killed it. Plaintiff, on hearing that his dog had been shot, wrote to defendant •asking him to make reparation ; but with this request the defendant refused compliance, and lienee the present proceedings. The plaintiff proved that the dog had been •duly registered. He contended that the island was Government property ; that defendant had mo legal riuht to have the sheep depasturing there "; that the dog had not injured the sheep, and that there was nothing to prevent defendant 'from recovering the animal had he been so disposed. The sheep, he believed, was a stray one, -and it was doubtful whether defendant could •establish ownership ; but even if the animal did belong to him, it was only worth a few shillings, 'while the dog was worth £5. For the defence, Mr Allanby submitted that •defendant was quite justified, under the provisions of the “Injuries by Dogs Act, 1865,” •in shooting the dog. His Worship said that the defendant happened to have the law on his side, and had rather in•considerately taken advantage of it. The Act relied upon for the defence was very stringent; and although the Bench sympathised with the plaintiff under the circumstances, there was no alternative but to dismiss the case. No costs would be allowed to defendant. [The following is the clause above referred to : —“ It shall be lawful for any person who shall • see a dog or dogs being at large biting or attacking any person or any horse sheep or cattle or who shall himself be attacked by such dog or dogs to destroy the same without being answerable for damage occasioned thereby unless such ■ dog or dogs shall at the time be in the immediate following of the owner of such dog or dogs or in his house or on the enclosed premises immediately ■adjacent thereto.”] M. BRIGH V. W. BUCHAN. Claim, £4. Defendant did not appear. Judgment given for 305.; costs of Court, 155.; one witness, 10s. ; and professional fee, 10s. 6d. W. SUTHERLAND V. NIL DKSPERANDUM CO. Claim, £4 4s. 6d. for blacksmith work. &c. The Legal Manager disputed the company’s liability for certain ironwork, which he said had been supplied to Alves am 1 Co. as contractors for • erecting the company's battery. Judgment for £2 Is., with 9s. costs of Court. E. M'NULTY V. M. NIS BET. Claim, £1 175., the cost of repairing a hotel lamp accidentally damaged by defendant. Mr Nisbet did not appear. The plaintiff stated that defendant drove his • dray against the lamp-post in front of the Roaring Meg Hotel, shattering three panes o glass. The glass was frosted and lettered. Defendant told him to get it repaired and send him the bill. He did so. but on presenting the account defendant refused to pay for anything hut the glass. A witness name! Wilkinson corroborated plaintiff’s evidence as to the breakage. His Worship gave judgment for the amount ■claimed, together with 13s. costs of Court and 295. witnesses’ expenses. Monday May 5. (Before M. Frner, Esq. , J. P.) Henry Callaghan, charged with drunkennessforfeited the amount of his bail—los.