Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume VI, Issue 91, 15 January 1885, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court

«, Wednesday, January 14, 1885. (Before E. Ward, Esq., E.M.,) A DANGEROUS DOG. James Harvey was charged on the information of Constable Meehan with unlawfully allowing a dangerous dog to be at larg-e without being muzzled. 'Mr Staite, appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. John Boal gave evidence of the.dog^ flying at him on Manchester Square on the 3rd inst.,and severely biting his leg, from the effects of which he was still suffering ; knew afterwards that it was defendant's dog. Cross-examined : Did nothing to provoke the dog; did not see it till it had torn his trousers and bitten his leg ; had suffered great pain trom thai bite. Constable Gillespie deposed that he had frequently spoken to defendant about the dog, and warned him of his liability ; frequent complaints had been made to h i:v» about the dog, wlridh. he well knew, to be defendant's. Richard Roake. deposed£ 6 his knowledge of the dog (described;) being in the possession of defendant on the date named, and seeing it bite complainant. .-.'.'•.,, Mr Staite applied for a dismissal on the ground of not sufficient evidenoe of the ownership of the dog. ' Charged dismissed without prejudice to complainant.. CIVIL CABEB. Manchester Road Board v. Win. Whisker— Claim £10 13s 1 5d, Judgment for plaintiff and costs. Henry Amphlett v .-Archibald. McDonald, — Claim £5 8s 9d. No * appearance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff and costs. \ Manchester Road Board vW. Gr. Dickson. — Claim 15s 9d for rates. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff and costs. Same v R. Marsh. — Claim for rates £5 2s 3d. No appearance of, defendant. Judgment for plaintiff's and CQStS. . .1 -„:• i . D. R. Lewers y iGrantham.—Judgment summons for £3-1 8s. ■■ MrJ Prior for plaintiff. The clerk read a letter from defendant at Ca&ertori, -stating his inability to attend, andajpoto.pay the claim at present. Case • adjourned till 1 lth February. Wm. Whisker v W. Cook^Glaini £19 9s Bd. Mr Staite 1 for plaintiff and Mr Prior for defendant. ; ; , - The claim was for meat . supplied between January 79 and March 82. The defence was that the claim had been paid, although defendant had not kept- the receipts. Plaintiff gave evidence of the claim which had not been satisfied. Cross-examined: Had not supplied defendant with an account before similar to one produced; plaintiff's books wore produced, showing certain credits to defendant, which plaintiff said were no part of present claim. Witness was closely questioned as :to his reason. for letting the claim go so long ; had kept delivering accounts and asking repeatedly for the money. Wm. "Whisker junr., corroborated his father's evidence; defendant. had never denied but frequently acknowledged the claim. ■ Defendant deposed that plaintiff had not supplied him: with meat from tho time stated ; had not tad accounts for the claim, and had not been asked by him for the money; .' Messrs 3Bartholomew had paid a claim for him made by plaintiff, and since then had not had goods from him ; neVer had receipts, , and would have paid plaintiff if he owed him anything ; would positively swear he had not had : any accounts for the claim.. Cross-examined : Witness swore not having had the goods mentioned in the account produced; had never promised payment, or been applied to for it. , Mr Prior urged the extreme improbability of such an alleged claim being allowed to stand so long, and that there was no documentary evidence of it prior to the present suit. His Worship was^ satisfied of the claim, and gave judgment for plaintiff and costs. '•■■'"*"'.") ' '■: ■■ Johu Boal y James Harvey. — Claim £9 10s 6d for personal and material damages and suffering sustained through the bite of a dog on the 3rd inst. Mr Prior for plaintiff, and Mr Staite for defendant: ' j This claim arose out. of the dog case reported above. Mr Prior' cited , authority showing the liability of the .owner of a ferocious dog to prosecution for substantial dainag.es, wKere.persfl&al suffering or other injury Had Men ausiaiued.: . . The plaintiff gave similar evidence to that in the previous case, but describing more fully the damage and injury sustained from the attack of the dog. . J. M. Higgin, chemist, deposed to dressing : plaintiff's wounds, which we/re lacerated, apd giving him some lotion to apply to them ; ' in his opinion it was .very important that plaintiff t>ok grpat care of his leg to prevent innaniation. . . , „ James Laing deposed as to seeing the dog with defendant £n the dayMn

<juesii(» it .as Harvey's since it was a pup. Grass-examined : - Had not known the dog to be ferocious, and could not Siy what dog bit plaintiff, ; E. Roake repeated the substance of hia, former , evidence, as did also Constable' GiUespie^theJaiter adding that; when he^Jiad). spoken to defendant about the dog he did not disclaim the ©wnßfsMp; or deny its ferocity, and hstd frequeritly; ! pf6mised to muzzle it, itj^bitiit 'liad not 'done 'so. . r iMfcr 'Sltaite applied for a non-suit on the ground of ;the. want of i ; sufficient identification, ]^Ir .Priqr. on ■ the. other hand arguing that, this had been amply proved/ r ' or *>' • • jfis^Wbrship •tnbugHt. there was sufficient proof^of ownership of -ihe dojf \rithin,- the meaning of the law, augl^erefpre^ something, for tho >de,^eadant; tpi rehutt.; .: ': ~ -i ! James iHarvey; the defendant, said he knew about " : the 'alleged biting; 1 likd a: dog of^the description given/, but it ,was not ; ferocious, thougli.it. had bit ; at . -persons when teased. ;: ■■■: "-:: :;-:- ■.-■■■ Cross-examined: — -Plaintiff came into' -Hastie's Hotel/a nd "said a dog ha£*sorn his irousers,; and witness we'rit' out ' and found his dog in the same position in which _he had left it, viz., lying under the horse attached ; to the draY ' " ■ ' . j' , . , Charleg Patterson was called but did not appear. After ffiither argumeut* from both counsel^ «hju3r Worship was satisfied that plaintijff had a just claim for some considerati«n,'and- gave' judgment for £o without costs.. , .... . T Wanganui Heads Railway Company v. P. and J. "Bartholomew. Claim. £ 6B. Tis,l for; calls oh shares in theisabovei Company.;. This .was an~ application for hearing of, evidence in the case the defence being that the calls had beend uly paid,, but not handed Wer'by the payee. £fr*Prior appeared for defendants and explained his inability to take the evidence on account of the absence of certain and •' therefore applied for an adjournment. E. LiifitohV of Wanganui, on behalf of the Company, ' (as "secretary)/ said he had no objection to ,. the adjournment if the evidence .'of defendants might bo avowed to be given in Wanganui. Mr Prior offered ncTobjection. Tfte : "application was accordingly adjourned till next court day, with the undemanding that the evidence itself be given in Wanganui. DESERTING CHILDREN: James White, of -Christchurch, was charged on the information of Constable .GillespTe, with deserting his two children, a boy and girl of the age of four and two y^ars respectively. i£rss.">€;onr.vjiU > who has charge of the children appeared with the same, and said tho mother --was deceased, aiyl» witness desired to hand over the children to their father. . Did . not: want to keep them if he paid for their support. """ His Wq^ship said the father would be 4 * written to, and if he did. not take them they would sent to an industrial school, an 1 the Clerk wa~B instructed to take tho necessary stops, ihe children to be. brought again next court day when" "some., order, would _be made. His.>sfii»hip .asked Mrs to. be kiud enoiigh ti> take j?are of them for him in the meantime, which she promised to do. -• ISfee Court then adjourned: