RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2888, 22 May 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day, (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. Robert Pearson, clerk and collector for the North Taieri Road District, v. David Urquhart, LI 19s 9d—claim for road rates. Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs. Jn.go v. Monson. I 3 10s, balance of account. Mr M'Keay for the defendant. The work having been contracted for with the father of the deceased, the plaintiff was non-suited, with costs.

Young v. Old (or Auld) was called, but there was no appearance of either party.

J. Edwards v. Proudfoot, Oliver, and IJlph, L 5 2s. Mr Shapter for the claimant; Mr Brent for the defendants. The case was this :—O. M'Leod had taken a sub contract on the Port Chalmers Railway for the construction of certain works. Under the subcontractor the plaintiff had been employed ; and Mr Shapter contended that, under the 13th section of the Contractor’s Debts Act, the workmen were entitled to sue the original contractor, who was responsible to them for their wages, if the sub-contractor was unable to pay them. Mr Brent, for the defence, contended that such a claim was inadmissible as the action was bi-onght under the 3rd section, and it was not proved there were moniej due to the sub-con-tractor, as required by that section ; and that the workmen, in relation to the first contractor, only stood in the position of the sub-contractor. They were not suing under the 13th section, but under the 3rd, and no attempt had been made by the plaintiff, in accordance with the provisions of that section, to attach the monies due to the subcontractor. Mr Shapter asked and obtained leave to amend the plaint, and by consent the case was adjourned to this day week, to give time to consider the form of procedure. There were other cases of the same character, which were also postponed. Sanderson v. Ellison,—LlS, the value of a horse whose death was caused by injuries inflicted by defendant’s dog, and costs of medicine and attendance. Mr Stout for the plaintiff; Mr Harris for the defendant. The evidence of the plaintiff was that last February his horse, worth Ll2, was injured in the shoulder, which rendered a veterinary surgeon’s attendance necessary, at an expense of L 5. Another surgeon was also employed, at a cost of H. He had seen defendant’s dog about his place frequently. The dog followed a friend to his house about two years ago, and remained two or three week*, hut afterwards strayed, and he next saw it with defendant’s wife, and since that time it had been in defendant’s possession. Plaintiff two years ago registered the dog, as he went to his house just as the dog-tax-collector called ; but immediately afterwards left the house for defendant’s; and since that time, whenever he went to plaintiffs, he was driven away.—Mary Sanderson, daughter of the plaintiff, said that on the Bth February defendant’s dog chased her fathers pony twice round the house. She tried to call the dog away, but he would not desist. After the second time round, she observed the pony standing holding his leg up as if its leg was broken, and the dog barking at it. She drove off the dog, and on examining the pony she saw a hole in its shoulder. There was no wound before the dog attacked it. —Robert Duckworth, of Anderson’s Bay, proved having seen the dog chase the pony into the water, into which it ran in terror. The dog was fond of sport, of gull hunting, and duck hunting.—Robert Moore, veterinary surgeon, attended the pony for four or five weeks It was worth about four pounds in the market. When he returned the pony he considered she was fairly recovered. She was nervous through a horse having attacked her and bit her on her way home. A wound in the muscles might be healed ; but if a fright or shock occurred even in three months afterwards, tetanus might ensue.—For the defence, the defendant Ellison was called. He said the dog was always claimed by plaintiff, even so lately as last Sunday week. He (witness) registered the dog both last year and this.—His Worship considered the evidence as to the ownership of the dog was weak ; for the dog must bo held to live and remain as much at one place as at the other. There had been a sort of joint-ownership that was unaccountable. If the dog were a nuisance, it was equally the duty of Sanderson to get rid of it as Ellison. On that point the case must fail. Judgment for the defendant; each party to pay costs.