Feilding B.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume XIV, Issue 64, 17 November 1892, Page 2

Feilding B.M. Court

This Day. (Before Mr Brabant R.M.) Charles Worsfold v. D. Cameron ; claim £22 7s 6d for wages due. Mr Sandilands for the plaintiff. Judgment for the plainfor the amount claimed, with 47s costs of court, solicitor's fee 42a. Ernest Rowling v. Thomas Powell ; claim £10 for wages due. Mr Sandilands for the plaintiff. Judgment for the amount claimed by default, with costs 1013, and solicitor's fee one guinea. S. J. Thompson v. E. J. Campion ; claim £2 4s lid. Mr Prior for the plaintiff. Judgment for the amount claimed, with costs of court 6s. H. F. Jannings y. H. Etayeneaux ; claim £5 4s 7d. Judgment for the plaintiff tor the amount claimed, with costs of court 10s, J. Hackett v. J. Ahlers ; claim £9 Bs. Judgment summons. Mr Sandilands for the plaintiff. Withdrawn by consent. William Light v. Thomas Powell; claim £5 10s 7d on a dishonoured cheque. Mr Sandilands for the plaintiff. Judg- j ment for the amount claimed, with costs of court 10s and solicitor's fee 21s. H. Pickering y. J. Osborn ; claim £16 12s J. S. Mr Prior for the plaintiff. Mr Hankins for the defendant. The defendant was cross-examined by Mr Prior at great length, as to her position. Ultimately no order was made. Simpson and Co. v. D. Scally ; claim £9 5s 3d. The amount was paid into court by the defendant. Mr Sandilands for the plaintiff applied for counsel's fee which was allowed. The police charged William Arnott with working a horse suffering from sores on the back and shoulders on the 28th of October last, contrary to section 7, Police Offences Act, 1884. Mr Baker appeared for the defendant. Constable Tuohy asked that the defendant might be ordered to produce the horse, and the court granted the application. Otto Hubner deposed that he was well acquainted with the horses belonging to the defendant, who owned two chestnuts somawhat similar, except that one had a white face, and the other had not ; Witness noticed the state of the horse (the one without the white face) on the date in question and a few days previously, and called defendant's attention to the animal's condition, and said the horse ought not to be worked, otherwise defendant would have the police after him; there were small sores on the shoulders, and a large sore on one side of the back ; The wound on the right shoulder is healed, but that on the left side is not ; the large sore has not yet healed, and the horse is not now fit to work. Cross-examination failed to shake the witness' evidence. By the Bench : The sore was in such a position that the cart saddle would chafe it. John Hubner deposed as to the state of the horse on the day in question, and his evidence tended to corroborate that of the preyious witness. By the Bench ; The flesh was raw and red on several occasions when the witness saw the horse, and the saddle must have chafed the sore on the back. J. C. Richarason stated that in consequence of information given him by Hubner, witness examined the horse on the 31st of October, and found it in a very bad state, owing to sores on the back and both shoulders, and was quite unfit for work; witness identified the horse and considered it was not yet in a sound state for working. Cross-examined: Witness is agent for the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and had been informed that the defendant constantly has kept his cattle for nearly twelve hours without food or water ; witness was positive that the horse could not be worked without causing it pain, at the time he saw it. James H. Blackmore deposed that on the Bth of October he examined the horse, when he found sores upon it ; the animal was even then unfit for work and it would require at least 25 days before it would be fit to use. John Thomas Foster and Constable Tuohy gave corroborative evidence. Mr Baker addressed the Bench and said he would call evidence to show that the horse was a difficult one to work and often got slightly chafed, but the defendant took precautions to prevent the harness rubbing the sores. James Fisher, for the defence, deposed that the horse had been working on his place for six months past, but he never noticed any sores on it until the defendant called his attention to them about the first of this month. Richard Flowers deposed that he had seen the horse but had never examined it or noticed any sores on it. Mr W. B. Retemeyer deposed that he saw the horse passing his place but he never noticed anything wrong with the animal, which was in good condition at the time witness saw it. David Black stated that he rode behind the horse on the 14th of October and did not notice anything wrong with it, but had never examined the animal. James Norman deposed he had often seen the horse with a worse back than it it has at present before the defendant became possessed of it. The accused gave evidence to show that the horse was naturally a very tender skinned one, that he padded the collar, and as soon as he found it was a bit sore he turned it out. His Worship said, as Mr Baker pointed out, there may be some question as to the amount of pain which a horse would suffer by being worked in the state in which this animal was. The evidence called for the prosecution was conclusive that the horse was worked in an unsound state, and accused had been warned not to use it. He would be fined 403 and costs 17s, with expenses of witnesses 665. Accused was allowed a month in which to pay. [Left sitting]