Folding B.M- Oftttt V1

Feilding Star, Volume VI, Issue 120, 26 March 1885, Page 2

Folding B.M- Oftttt V 1

Wednesday, Mabch 25, ills.

(Before B. Ward, &q., 8.K.,)

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS. James Munro, of Awahuri road, was charged on the information of Constable Meehan with unlawfully illtreating a bullock on the 14th insi. Defendant pleaded notguilty

D. McKenzie deposed to driving oattle along the road, and one ranintp - - defendant's place, and he rushed and threw a hatchet atit on<* or twicsJn- 1v dieting some cuts (described); tola defendant to desist and witness would take it away. „;/.,.., By defendant: Did hot in tilt

bullock make a stand at defendant

before the latter struck him; should _ say the implement used wasa'toms^v.'y. hawk. '"■' .!.: F. Bryce deposed to being with last witness on the occasion, ana corroborated bis evidence.

Defendant sworn, said"th*ibullock was driven into his paddock by the previous witnesses ; it mtidei rush at him and he threw, a shingle hammer at it in self defence ; did : not injure) the bullock ; had examined the animal and found a wound oniWhJndfluaitaga caused bj pushing through a jagged fence in getting away ; hit the animal with the hammer on this shoulders a&4 not on the hind parts. - For the defence John Prior deposed that he was riding past, and saw defendant throw something at th» at the beast, but did not think it wa* hit. ..,. „.,;;..;; ■ ,

Peter Stewart deposed: to baing asked by defendant to examine tha bullock, and found no marks asaUeged; it appeared to be an animal that. wovld ' charge anyone; only saw a^ little dn*i blood on the tail ; there might httfts been marks which he did not see. v

T. Fraser gave similar, evidence \ ", Constable Meehan deposed to 't^am? , ining the beast, and finding , - fom# sefere cuts about the.tail ; oould m\ng plenty of witnesses to . oorrolierato hia evidence, . ..'...,, : , ,• „ , ,' ; lo Defendant was found guwj ana fined 4o» and costs, . , '-„.'. ■^.^■.•\\ James Scantling, of Biunj^orpt, was charged with a like,pfleaee .oxi^fia> 18th inst. He pleaded not gMsjr ? ■; A witness named Jackson, ;Onsj|6r*.: mation, deposed to seeing deifendant driving a bullock; it kicked ou|; s)t him, but did not touch hiin;.hf J .thj^i got a crowbar apd atruck $e, bulle>ojc in the face four or dye, timf*,; , wi^asta ?, begged of him to stop, when he sajd he would run it into witness ,|f bfiaaid anything (the crowbar, a veryr^heajry one, was here produced, and witness described how defendant used it about the bullock.) . ; *! : *

For die defence EL, Adams deposed to seeing defendant give the bullock a 11 poke" with the crowbar,' but &4/noft.; strike it about the face ;. witness .toldt him he had better leave off ; had 90 particular reason for tellings hint to ; desist ; the crowbar. ; produced was th« ' one used. r , .; , .... .',..'.. j By the Bench : It was not true defendant struck the. bullock: aboyt the head as deposed to. by form«r ; witness. The bullock had no; marks.ipf blows. Witness mated and lirsd with defendant. It was here put seriously to witness' conscience as to whether he was speaking the truth and nothing else, and as to whether SoimtUnf 1 hnd lied, and he answered in, .&*> aifirmatire.

Constable Mwhan deposwl to the, jreat incongruity of- the, ., statements ] nade to him by witnesses b^oreithe ictaon and now ; had examined, f&av I bullock, and there .was o^y one maA over the eye. '.. •' ." ' '"' '.'''"■ i Defendant, sworn, poritirelTdenieA itrtkjng the animal over the head into he bar ; did strike' it twice on the houlder (showing with the bar how tedidit.) . ' • i= . :. ■ : , . ) ff Fined 20s and costs, - •• A;i v/ TAIUVQ TO UAOTAIM. George Grantham was changed wtifc ailing to comply with an order tb m per week towards themaintenaa^ 1 ilia wife Louisa. Defendant ha4^ ent something on account, <ptoiHfc* aae waa adj<mmed till next oOuxt lay. ■■ • rrto ' :•:.:■• „^-. ■ CIVIL COM. • .■:, m'] j , James Whisker t A. OttJtavtoo.^ , Claim £7 17« for meat suppUed, Mr Prior for plaintiff, i; ■■ ;., - : ;^- Defendant was -ezaßw &ed' at.laog^ ' and disputed the cUii^; wa»~Kvingf and working with ; ether penona (named), and these got he goods; au own name at the time :iras : noi I good. : > enough for meat or anj^ tunjr else, ;;>■,'>: ' This case appeared toIXe a. ?«rir complicated one, and the evidence of the: witness was not; very dear. v Hia 5 Worship thought the interesta of ju#tice would be best served, ( fo ad|Qurn> ' ing the case to allow Attendant to bnng witnesses. ••■• • ..i. ; •> Adjourned till next ctmrt day. *kj Kirton A Curtis ▼ Joan lieweDvn. --Claim £a 5s 6d. l»ri*.|b# r plaintiffs. No appearance of defendant: Judgment for plaintiffs and aoMs.i r D. R lowers v W. Marshll-Claua |&5 6s4d. Mr Prior for plaintiff . No* appearance of defendant Jad^mamt "X for plaintiff and costs; >i': v/ :lk - : leaser Bros. vThos. ,800^ -—(aaha - £14 6s Id. Mr S^uWf^ plaintiffs and Mr Priorfordefendant. the defence peing tnat toe depc was k partnenhii» one of a late firm of whofSSSSSt { was only one, and the caae Was not, therefore, properly before the oourt. " After a long argument between both counsel. and the Bench,; ' the case' was *' aUowe^to i proc«M' i oW^'ltteHiksi u '' : ' ■•••■ ' Alex. Firaeer deposel^'to delivering . !fe,*W e ,°? * e K^°*» « *h* claim to Thomas Smart ;ui September, 1*82, ' the a icouflt was altered te Smart Bros., without any authbri^ir iroirua firm ; defendant had acknowledse^the present claim and l had proaSsd' to pay it; had no notic^-of disjoli^t^n a/ partnership. . • ; >- , Cross-examined: Only reoognued Thomas. Smart, and did not serve the / ac;pount3 to Sma^t Bros.; Tho^xasra'nJ Ralph. Smart had eacH a private a^ 4;ount distinct '^m jth9 Jf ||rm aooouat^-

tfv.,

the accounta rendered previous to thi one sued upon were in the name o Smart Bros. ■-, , r . . < B. Fraser, another of the plaintiffs deposed to the correctness of the claizz against Thomas Smart. Cross-examined : Did not see all th< goods delivered, but kjxew that the] were ; the affair got so complicated ai last that they didn't know whom t< charge the accounts with ; did not se< notice of dissolution, but heard of it. At this stage, His "Worship rulec that tne items incurred previous to th< dissolution should be struck out, anc that the defendant's case might proceed as related to the balance. The defence was then opened ai •ome length by Mr Prior. Thomas Smart; defendant, deposed to being at one time in partnership with his brothers at Carnarvon ; they dissolved on 19th April, 1883, and this wbsb duly gazetted; toldß. Frasei of the dissolution, and that he was in future to keep the 'accounts separate ; the only goods he got since came to £l9s lOd; had not ordered any goods since, nor been- in the store; had not since the dissolution received any account similar to the one attached to the summons. . Witness' was cross-examined at considerable length, and admitted having used certain goods which were brought to the house; but in his re-examina-tion he said lie did not order ror receive them. Witness here answered a number of questious as to the family and partnership transactions with reference to the receipt and payment of goods &c. Roderick Fraser was recalled, and stated that certain goods defendant had disputed as obtained since the partnership he (witness) distinctly remembered having received orders for at the house and delivered to the same place ; none of these were ordered by or delivered to defendant's brother ; could not remember as separate items some other goods referred to as it was so long ago. Witness underwent a searching examination by the 'Bench. ■Both counsel then addressed the court, Mr Prior contending there was no satisfactory evidence of the order by or delivery to Thomas Smart of the goods the subject of the claim, and Mr Staite on the other hand that there was sufficient proof of the goods having been delivered to and consumed by the family of, and including the defendant, who being the. head was therefore liable.

His Worship summed up, and ruled that certain items should be struck out, leaving a balance of £6 12s 4d, for which judgment was given with costs anil' professional fee. W. S. Btaite v J. R. Davies.— Claim £6 7s 6d for legal charges. Mr Prior appeared for defendant, who made a statement of his case; Mr Staite he said was to have done certain work for him, and to have obtained the opinion, of a. certain eminent counsel, which he failed to do and he (defendant) thought he had already fully compensated the plaintiff for anything he had done. Plaintiff deposed to writing to Mr Shaw asking him if he would take the case up and he. declined after going thoroughly into , the matter . and maksearches &c.

Witness had to pay Mr Shaw his fees, which were part of the present claim ; he had done all that defendant asked him to do, and only sought satisfaction of a just claim. His Worship held that the services had been rendered, for which the charges were usuaj, and judgment was given for plaintiff and costs. Mr Prior waived his professional fee, as defendant said he had no money.

The court then adjourned.