MAGISTERIAL ..

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2209, 5 June 1908, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL ..

THURSDAY, JUNE 4th. (Before Air. A\'. A. Barton, S.AI.). In the case of Yule and Soil (Air. Stock v. Alilburn Bros. (Air. Sainsbury, a claim arising over a dispute •about a steel rope and pulley,, the evidence of a witness named Charles Drummond was taken. Costs were certified, plaintiff £1 14s 8d and defendant £1 Is. • DRUNKENNESS. Edward' Hogan was convicted ofdrunkenness, and was fined 10s, ivith 2s costs, in default 48 hours ’imprisonment. , CIVIL CASES. Judgment by default was-granted in the following civil cases:—Francis Stafford (Air. Hei) v. Kilii and Alarta Kiraka, claim £27. 11s, with costs £4 18s; Henry Stevenson (Air. Sainsbury) v. \A r m. Evans, claim £ll Is, with costs £2 0s 6d; William- A.. O’Meara v. Albert Ludwig Amundsen, claim £3 ISs 3d, with costs 15s. In the judgment summons case of AA'm. Jas. Roberston. Bruce (Air. Sainsbury) v. Joseph Goldsmith, an order, by.consent, was made for the immediate payment of the debt and oosts, £l3 4s 7d; to be suspended upon tho payment of £2 moutiily until the debt is extinguished. A DOAIESTIC PET. Norman Bradley Smith proceeded against Herbert Yardley for' the recovery of £2, being the value of a mongoose, the property of the plaintiff and alleged to be wrongfully shot by the defendant. Air F. AV. Nolan appeared for tho plaintiff and Air T. A. Coleman - for the defendant. Norman -Bradley Smith, plaintiff, said that the mongoose was similar to a domestic -eat, it had free access to all parts of his house, and was perfectly quiet. On Sunday s , May 3, witness heard a shot, and on going to the door he saw defendant holding the mongoose up by the tail. AVit- ' ness asked defendant if ho bad shot it, and defendant replied that -he had, and -asked l what sort of an animal it was. To Air. Coleman : He had never known the animal to eat or- play with eggs. lie had never heard that it was one of the most mischevious animals among poultry. He had -no means of identifying it by -a collar or anything. John Maurice Goldsmith said that he had had the animal on his property frequently, lie had seen it running amongst his fowls, but- never knew it to do any harm. It was always perfectly tame, and could not be mistaken for a weasel. To Air. Coleman: On one occasion an egg had been recovered from a nest on liis premises next door to plaintiff’s. ’Witness would be surprised to hear that fowls were missing from- the surrounding houses. Samuel McAlurray, another neighbor of plaintiff’s, gave similar evidence, which closed the case for the plaintiff. For the defence, Herbert Yardley said that he did shoot the mongoose oil tho dav in question. lie heard the noise among the fowls, and thought it was a weas- - el. AVhen he firstsa w. it, it was on top of a coop, wfiere there were some chickens, -and witness went tor his rifle. AAhen lie got back the mongoose was going fioni nest to -nest in the'fowl- - house. AA’itness shot the animal as it was trying to get away through the fence. Prior to the 3rd of Alav he had .lost three or four fowls and on the Friday previous one of liis fowls -appeared to have been bitten, and the blood sucked from it. Tho section was securely fenced with a, pal-' nI S„ fence and wire netting. .Ei ic Aiellor, a boy of 14, gave evidence as to knowing the. mongoose, and stated that on one occasion it llew up and scratched- his brother. William Alartin, a,neighbor of tho defendant’s, said that he was talking to defendant across the fence and heard a commotion among the fowls. I hey saw the mongoose there .Defendant went to get a gun, and the mongoose went over to a coop-full of chickens and then into the fowlhouse. AAhen defendant came out with the gun the animal was on top or the fowl-house. It came down and ran along the fence. Tlie defendant then shot- it. George Ritchie, master, mariner, said that the mongoose was naturally as ferocious as a tiger, though when tained was often as playful as a cat and wero great destroyers of fowls and eggs. Addressing the Court, Air. Coleman held that plaintiff could not succeed ' as he was quite justified in slicotiim - the animal even though it was a pet; Air. Nolan submitted that the dom'd I ’°,Vd llt to slwot the animal, but should have sued for any damages caused by the mongoose: 11m Bench said lie thought dv- , - ,m,6t succeed. If plaintiff '° ; U t ] bung a foreign animal into a neighborhood ho should keep it upon Judgment would vM dcfeuc(<xiit } with costs*