Magistrate’s Court.

Gisborne Times, Volume V, Issue 14, 18 January 1901, Page 3

Magistrate’s Court.

At the Court yesterday, before Mr W. A. Barton, S.M., Robert A. Moore, for whom Mr R. N. Jones appeared, sued F. B. Ovenden for £9 14s Ga. Mr L. Rees appeared for defendant, and there was a set-off filed. The plaintiff unfortunately suffers a defect in speech and hearing, and he gave evidence through his father. Mr Jones suggested that the case 'might be submitted to arbitration. The suggestion was agreed to by Mr Rees, and after the evidence of the Rev. H. Wil-. liams was taken, it was decided that the ease should come on to-day before the Magistrate as arbitrator. F. Scott sued Johann for £lO 3s, balance due on a pugmill. Mr Jones appeared for plaintiff, and Mr ,W. L. Rees for defendant. Tho latter admitted that' the liability had been incurred, but saidthjvt he had had a claim from Mr Stafford, a partner with Mr Scott. The latter gave evidence that the work was done after the partnership had ceased, but on being called, Mr Stafford gave evidence that the work was done during the term of the partnership, and His Worship non-suited the plaintiff, with 23s oosts. Lissant Clayton, a sheep farmer, of I’iniroto, sued Harry Cooper and Mrs J. S. Cooper for £6, value of sheep worried by dogs. ;Mr R. N. Jones (for Mr Nolan) appeared for plaintiff, and Mr L. Rees (for Mr DeLautour) for the defence. The evidence of the plaintiff was that on May 15 he had found a npmber of his sheep killed and some injured by dogs, and from information received he went to Mr William Cooper, of Tiniroto, and Mr Rodgers, whose dogs had been seen near one of the dead sheep. An offer had been made to settle the matter, and the different parties agreed to share the damages. Rodgers and Cooper both drowned their dogs after the sheep—about a dozen —had been killed. Mr and Mrs Rodgers and Messrs Galloway and Goodnight were called by the plaintiff. Galloway stated that from his window he had seen Cooper’s and Rodgers’ dogs sniffing about tho dead sheep, but. while he was. coming out of his house the dogs disappeared in the direction of the hotel. He positively identified the dogs, which was admitted, but he could not say that it was them that had worried the sheep. He knew that Cooper’s dog was in the habit of going through a flock of sheep every morning for the cattle. Mr Goodnight said that he had been awakened at 1 in the morning by dogs among Cooper’s sheep, but on his going out the dogs disappeared. He would not say whose dogs they were. Later on, at 4or 5, he saw Cooper’s dog about 50 yards from the hotel and about a hundred yards from where the sheep were-worried. The defence was that some Maoris had come through the night before, bringing dogs with them, also that the dog complained of had been used to sheep, and had never been known to' attack any sheep, and had been sent out that morning as usual for the cows. On bis return he had no appearance of having been eating sheep. After complaint had'been made defendants offered to"settle the matter, but only for peace sake, and had destroyed the dog so that there could be no cause for further complaints. The defendants had agreed to pay one-third of the damage, but on the Maoris offering to pay their third the plaintiff wanted defendants to collect the whole of the money, which they declined to do. His Worship held that there was not sufficient evidenceto showthat the defendants’ dog had done the worrying, although the circumstances were suspicious; he would therefore nonsuit the plaintiff. It was, he said, a great pity that in pastoral districts people did not keep their dogs tied up at night. Costs amounting to £2 15s 9d were allowed. A. H. Gillman sued Puku Cookery for £5 16s Gd for goods supplied. . Mr R. N. Jones appeared for plaintiff, for whom judgment was given by default, with £1 15s Gd costs.