RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 2080, 5 January 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Heudley v, Mitchell. —This was a claim of L2O for the wilful destruction of a dog, the property of the plaintiff. From the evidence of plaintiff, it appeared that, having missed his dog, a Scotch terrier, known as “ Tinker,” he asked Mrs Mitchell, wife of the defendant, if she knew anything about the dog, and she acknowledged to having killed and buried it. She could not say what induced her to lull it. The defence was that Mrs Mitchell and others had been for some time annoyed by a stray dog, without a collar, biting the children. She destroyed the dog,and when asked by plaintiff if she knew anything about his dog, she told him she had killed a dog, but did not admit that it was his dog “Tinker.” She was assisted in killing the dog by two other women. There was a good deal of conflicting evidence ; but the identity of the dog was proved. Verdict for plaintiff L 4 10s with costs. Mr Turton appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Harris for defendant. Wallace v. LilHo.—This was an adjourned case—a disputed account —the particulars of which have already been published. _ The adjournment was granted to enable plaintiff to procure an important witness, Mr Walter Bell. It was stated that they had not been able to obtain the presence of that gentleman. The defence was that plaintiff had been employed by defendant, and received certain payments on account; and upon the accounts being made up, there was a balanpe of Bs. Judgment for plaintiff, L 29, with costs. Mr Harris appeared for plaintiff. Mr James Smith, for defendant, asked that execution be stayed to enable him to state a case for a rehearing. Dbak and Blackwood v. Little.—This was another case adjourned from-a previous day. It was similar to the previous one. Little and Co had taken over a certain contract from Walter Bell and Co, It was maintained that defendants undertook the ’back liabilities on the contract when they took it over. The defence was that the defendants

did not undertake to pay any further sums than what were paid until the accounts had been adjusted by Mr Bell after the works were completed. No adjustment had been made, and until such was done, the defendants were not liable.—His Worship said tint from the documents payment was contingent on a certain thing being done, which there was no proof of having been accomplished. At this stage Mr Harris, for plaintiff, stated his willingness to accept a nonsuit. Mr Smith, for defendant, did not object. Plaintiff nonsuited. Brenchlcy v. M'Glashan and another. This case was adjourned until Monday, at two o’clock. Asher and Another v. Watts. —This was a claim for L 36 I6s 7d, the amount of an overdue acceptance. Judgment for plaintiff.