RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2386, 24 November 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

This Day, (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) A CAT AND GOSLING CARE. Timothy Rabbit was charged by Julia Long with unlawfully assaulting and beating her at Kaikora on the I4th insfc. Mr Howorth for the defence. From the evidence it appeared that Mrs Julia Long was the proprietor of a number of chickens and goslings, and Mr Timothy Babbit is the ownner of a fierce torn cat. Mr Rabbit’s tom cat cast an eye on Mrs Long’s goslings, and appropriated several of them to the gratification of his own selfish appetite. ‘Whereupon Mrs Long asked Mr Rabbit to kill his wicked cat, which he refused to do, tailing her he had rather kill herself that the cat. As the cat continued to make inroads on Mrs Long’s clutch of goslings, that lady contrived to btg him, and took him prisoner to a friend, Mr Moore, who accompanied her to Rabbit, to demand justice. On the approach of Mrs Long she was met by Mrs Rabbit with a tin dish, who forthwith, without provocation, planted a blow upon Mrs Long’s head. This valiant demonstration on behalf of the cat was followed by still more violent measures by Rabbit, who took complainant by the arm and saluted her with two or three kicks. Mrs Long never opened her lips till then, when she sung out “murder.” The witness Moore said that no other provocation was given to the defendant but Mrs Long proceeding to “ let the cat out of the bag.” His Worship considered that unnecessary violence had been used in ejecting the com-, plainant from the premises. There was no need to take the cat to the defendant. All that need be done was to call a witness to the raid upon the goslings and then sue for damages. The defendant was fined 10s and costs. A charge against Mrs Rabbit for assault with the tin dish was withdrawn at his Worship’s suggestion. CHARGE OF IMPOSITION. Howard v. Farcpiharsnn—Mr Howorth for the defendant. The defendant was charged by Mr G. R. Howard with unlawfully imposing upon him by a false and fradulent representation, and obtaining a parcel of goods in consequence, value five skillings. Mr Howard said that the defendant went into his shop and asked for two ounces of biniodc of mercury for Mr Larnach’s horse. He asked, “Are you sure it is for. Mr Larnach’s horse?” The defendant said, “ Yes ; and if you make the bill out in the morning I will call for it and get you the money.” On enquiry of Mr Larnach’s groom, he found that Farquharson had not been employed to attend Mr Larnach’s horse. He had been spo :en to once about firing a horse, but he had never done it. Defendant had called at his shop, when ho (Howard) told him he was a blacbguard, and ho wanted nothing to say to him.

Hobart Raymond, assistant to Mr Howad, gave similar evidence as to the words used by Farquharson. Mr Howorth submitted that the case had failed, as Mr I arnach had not been called, and Mr Farquharson would not allow the cose to r sc.

His Worship pointed out that of necessity the case must fail, as there was no proof that Mr Larnnch had not instructed defendant to purchase the medicine. Mr Howorth, on behalf of the defendant, said that he was instructed by Mr Larnach’s groom to fire the horse, but that Mr Larnach had changed his mind as to the operation, and in consequence the ointment was not needed. The case was dismissed.