RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2247, 20 July 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tms Day, (Before J. Fulton, Esq., E.M.) Civil Cares. In the following cases judgment was given by default for the plaintiffs M'Laren and Co. v. Murray of Hokitika—L9 19s; Forgusson and Mitchell v. H. W. Barker of Hokitika—L4 3s ; Hay v. Smith of Arrowtown— Lls 14s ; Burke v. Whybrow of Waikouaiti —19 10s. Mary Carter v. Campbell—A claim for L 5 10s for board. Judgment for the defendant. Twenty-throe cases on the list for hearing to-day were cither settled out of Court or judgment by confession was accepted. DANGEROUS DOG. Welsh v. Burke.—This was a claim for damages and loss of time through the plaintiff having been attacked and bitten by a dangerous dog. Mr M ‘Keay for the plaintiff ; Mr James Smith for the defence. Mr M'Keay in opening the ease pointed out that the English law, before au action could he sustained, required that the owner of the dog should have knowledge of the vicious propensity of the animal, but that by the t irdinance in force in the Province, no such knowledge was necessary. The plaintiff said that he was a laborer and kept cows. About three months prior to the 19th Juno the defendant warned him not to let the children go near his hut on the Town Brit, as he had a dog there that would ruin them. On the day witness was there, the chain by which the dog was fastened was from three to three and a half yards long, aqd he could put his nose in at the door. He wont tq Mr Burke for the purpose of “cutting tho top of his hair,” and that the defendant might cut his. In going away from the house the dog seized his leg and held on, until called off by defendant. He had been put to expense in loss of time, hiring labor, medical expenses, and accidents resulting from his not being able to look after his business as a milk seller. He once had to throw a stone at the dog to keep him off. Dr. Alexander stated that he was called in about the 22nd or 23rd June, that he found the plaintiff suffering through a wound in the leg, apparently caused by the bite of a dog ; that the leg \yas much bruised, swollen, and inflamed, and the wound was sloughed. He advised external applications and rest. He considered it very likely the plaintiff might be laid up for ten or fourteen days. The defendant said he had cautioned the plaintiff not to go out until he got tho dog into bis box. He never “felt” the plaintiff go out. He called to plaintiff to tell him he had left his scissors behind him. He had lived there four years ; the plaintiff had often been there and knew the dog was savage. In answer to Mr M'Keay, the defendant said the dog was a mastaff, about two feet high, a strong powerful dog. Ho would swear on his oath that the words he used were “ I caution you, John Welsh, not to go out until I quiet the dog.” From the door to where the post to which tho dog is fastened was about two feet and a half, and was half-way between his kennel and the door of the hut. A witness was called for the defence, who did not believe he wos near the p'ace on the 19th June, and did not know anything about the dog or his chain. His Worship thought L 5 would pay for the damage and the wounded feelings, and awarded that sum as damages accordingly.