RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2385, 23 November 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tins Dav

(Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.)

Civil Cases, Bathgate v. Rr.inforth.—Ll6 6s. for professional services as a solicitor. Judgment by default for th • amount with costs. Dicki; and Rankin v. Gibson. —LS 3s 6d, for work and labor done. L2 8s was paid into Court. Mr M ‘Keay for the plaintiffs. From tbe evidence, it appeared that medicines had been supplied to the defendant’s horse, and goods of various sorts were supplied. Judgment for the plaintiffs, L 3 11s, to include the money paid into Court. Macfarlaue v. Thomas.—Ll 9s 7d, for groceries supplied. From the evidence, it appeared that there was a cross account for agency, which neither plaintiff nor defendant could satisfactorily explain. This case was adjourned to Friday morning. West v. A. M.‘Leod, for meat supplied.— LI os lOd. Judgment by default for the plaintiff, for the amount with costs. O’Neal v. L. Falcknett.—For rent, 18s. Judgment hy default for the plaintiff, with costs.

J. U. Russell v. Thos. Hudson.—L2 17s, for conveyance of goods by express waggon. Judgment by default for the plaintiff, with costs.

J. Russell v. George Roberts. Mr Harris for the plaintiff. This was a summons for the defendant, to shew why he had not paid the amount of a debt for which judgment had been obtained in the Resident Magistrate’s Court, but which he had not paid anything on account of. The defendant was examined as to the circumstances under which the debt was contracted, and as to his present ability to pay the debt. From his statement it appeared that he had been working for one Macauley. to whom he owed 23 weeks board. That his wages were 12s a week, but he had received nothing. The debt to Macauley was extinguished last week. His Worship thought himself warranted in denominating the transaction as a downright case of fraud, as a promise bad been made to pay the debt out of funds due to him for wages, at the Hospital. He had not kept the promise, and that therefore the sum of L 5 7s fid must he paid forthwith, or the defendant he imprisoned for six weeks, with hard labor. People were under the impression payment*of debts under LlO could be neglected with impunity. It was necessary that they should be undeceived. Gall v. Kilgour, LIS. Mr Turton for Mr Cook for the plaintiff. Mr Hodgkins for the defendant- This was an action under the Injuries by Dogs Act, 1860, for damages done by the defendant’s dog by worrying the plaintiff’s sheep at Roslyn. James Gall said he had 191 sheep in his paddocks at Brockvi.le on the 27th October for slaughtering. They were prime and fat., The average weight of each was 57 lb, and they were worth 17s a head. He saw them on the 27th, and they were in good condition. The next day they were not like the same sheep, for they had the appearance of having been harrassed by dogs. None of them were torn. They looked “ flappit down,” and to all appearance lighter. He got the sheep from the Company’s station on the Molyneux, a distance of sixty miles. Adam Blackwook, shepherd to Mr Gall, said that the sheep were received in very good condition. About half-past five on the morning of the 28th he saw two dogs in the paddock, one a black and white Newfoundland dog—the other was black. The one was running round the sheep, and the other was biting them. They were jammed “ all in a heap” near the swamp. He ’‘sang out,” when the white dog ran off. The black one seized a sheep by the shoulder, and before he i - an away, caught hold of another. He followed the two dogs down the main road into Roslyn. He lost sight of them 200 yards from Mr Kilgour’s house. He went there, and saw the dogs He asked Mr Kilgour if the black and white one, which made its appe iran.ee, was his dog. He said it was. He asked if he had another, and was answered “ Yes.” On being shewn the other aog, it proved to be a black one. (Mr Kdgour admitted that the d gs be showed the witness were bis own dogs). The witness had no doubt about the identity of the dogs. One was all dirty with having been in the swam]) and was lame and still. The sheep would not settle, they hid been so frightened He would not have given more than 12s or 13s each for them. He examined the carcase of the bitten sheep after it was slaughtered, and it had been torn. He went to Mr Brown’s and saw his dogs, hut it was not they who had torn the sheep. He told Mr Williamson that he thought the dog was his, but instead of going to Ids house it wont past. John Vesey, in the employ of Mr Gail, said lie saw the sheep rounded up in a fiock as il tuoy hail been chased by a dog. They were quiet sheep; but we;-s agitated and depreciated in value 2s to 3s each. For the defence Mr Kilgour admitted having two dogs—one black and white and one black. They were usually on ibc chain, and seldom strayed. Occasionally they went to the next premises (Mr Brown’s). On the 28th October Blackwood ctiled and was shown the dogs, and he said he bad seen them worrying sheep. Ho rcmaiked that was strange, as they had been in the yard between throe and four in the morning, and when the children to so, between six and seven in the morning, they werjs till lin the yard. He asked 'if much damage was depp. aim was told noth c shoe;) had been knocked about. He saw them, but there was nothing unusual about them. Their feet were wet, but there was a spring on the ground to which the dogs went with the children. They did not look as if they had been running shoe)). Mr Kilgour received a letter, stating Gad was willing to settle the matter for LlO, saying that one sheep had entirely disappeared, and .-'bout eighty had to he killed on account of injuries sustained. His Worship reviewed the evidence, and gave judgment for the full amount claimed, with costs. (Left sitting.)