MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2055, 24 September 1880, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Thubsdat, Sbptkmeeb 23. [Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M.] Civil Oases.—Miles v Andrews, Ker v same, Bucket v same, were separate actions with similar grounds, heard for convenience together. Mr Slater for the plaintiffs, Mr Stringer for defendant. On the 12th August last defendant, living on a quarter-acre section of land in Bingsland, a thickly-populated suburb of Christchurch, purchased from a chemist in Christchurch one scruple of strychnine. On the 14th a greyhound, Tam O’Shanter, imported from England by, and the property of. Miles, valued at £2O ; a retriever, belonging to Bucket, valued at £8 : a, Newfoundland and retriever, owned by the same person, and a greyhound slut, Bow Bells, yalued at 10 guineas, the property of Ker, died suddenly, showing as the plaintiffs say, symptoms of having been poisoned by strychnine. Plaintiffs now sought to recover the above values from defendant. Ker had charge of Tam O'Shanter, ho and Bucket were neighbours of Andrews, the defendant. The dogs had been loose during the day. They were seen near Andrews’ place, but not in it. The section occupied by Andrews was proved to have been tolerably well fenced, if not absolutely dog proof. No evidence was led to show that any analysis of the dogs’ stomachs had been made after death, nor did the witnesses say they had any special knowledge of the symptoms induced in dogs poisoned by strychnine. Miss Ker, sister of one of plaintiffs, said defendant had made inquiries of her about a black dog, and shortly afterwards a black dog belonging to Ker died. Andrews had by advertisement in the “Star” about a month before the occurrence notified his intention of laying poison on his ground. Defendant said that on the night of the 13th he had placed baits of four pieces of beef, weighing each about a quarter of an ounce, enclosing a little strychnine, near the middle of his section. On the following morning ho found only one piece remaining. On the two previous nights he had laid down two baits, but they had not been disturbed. They were put cown after sundown, and lifted at sunrise each time. He laid down the poison to destroy cats which infestrd his place and carried off his chickens. On the whole of his baits ha had only used half of the quantity of poison ho bought. Mr Stringer claimed a nonsuit. He quoted a passage from “ Anderson on Torts,” which laid down that any person might legally place poison on his own ground, provided he did not attempt by “strongly scented” baits to entice dogs to their destruction. According to this authority, if dogs following their natural instincts took poisoned bait that had been laid with proper precaution, the layer of the poison could not be hold responsible. The evidence showed that proper care had been taken by defendant, and there was nothing to prove that the dogs had taken poison on Lis land at all. Mr Slater said the evidence was certainly only circumstantial, but he thought it was sufficient to prove his case. The Magistrate said plaintiff must be nonsuited. Ho believed the dogs died from poison they picked up on defendant’s land, but he was bound to beliovo also that sufficient care had been taken in laying down the poison. Defendant swore, too, that only three baits had boon taken, and there were four dogs killed If a dead sheep, poisoned for bait, lay i i the middle of a much larger section than defendant occupied, it might be held that it was placed there to entice dogs, but pieces of beef weighing a quarter of an ounce each could scarcely bring greyhounds into an enclosed section in search of them. Plaintiffs nonsuited with costs. Moss v Jones, £6, Mr Stringer for defendant. The claim was for furniture supplied to a Mrs Flowers under the guarantee, it was alleged, of defendant, No written guarantee was forthcoming, andiplainliff was nonsuited with costs. Phillips v Haines, £3 7s 63. Mr Stringer for defendant. Philllips was tenant, and by written agreement undertook to pay all rates on the house owned by def uadant which ho occupied. The Waimakariri conservation rate and the City Council’s asphalte rate were special rates, and he considered the owner ought to pay them. He paid them, however, under protest for ten years, and now, on leaving the house, sought to recover the amount. His Worship said that a general agreement, such as that produced, to pay rates must be construed to mean all rates, special or otherwise. Judgment for defendant with costs. City Council v Lamb, £1 Os 9d for asphalte rate. This case was the converse of the one heard just previously. Defendant being tenant without any written agreement, paid all ordinary rates, but refused to pay this one, as he considered it was an owner’s rate. The prosecution put in the by-law of the City Council which says that the tenant may be sued for the rate, but that the tenant has his suit against the landlord for recovery of the amount. Defendant had left the house since the rate was due. His Worship gave judg ment for defendant, saying that it defendant had been sued before leaving he might have deducted the amount of the rate from his rent. The Council must now sue the landlord. Judgment went by default in King and Co. v Qrigg, £2O 15b 93 ; Eisher v Baldwin, £4 12s lOd; City Council v Spensley, £l4 Is 9d; Same v Horrioks, £ll 9s; Same v McOullum, £l9 14s; Same v Montague, £8 10s ; Same v Bennington, £2O 10s ; Same v Noon, £1 14s 6d ; Same v Borrat, £5 16s 83 ; Same v O’Brien, £5 10s 23 ; Same v Marshall, £1 10s 83 ; Doyle V Lloyd, £3 10s ; Same v O’Keefe, £5 6s ; Same v Travis, £6 15s 63 ; Innes and Co. v Raven, 10s ; and Hopkins’ Trustees v Burrows, 12s sd. Judgment for plaintiff was given in Trustees of Morrison v Bowden, £l4 6s ; City Council v Beaton, £3 16s lid; Hayman and Co, v Smith, £8; and Innes and Co. v Pateman, £1 2a 6d. Hill v Dunn was adjourned till the 30th inat., and Taylor v Levi till November 18th-

[Before G. L. Hellish, Esq., B.M.] Feiday, September 24. Fighting. —Wm. Byan, charged with being concerned in a street row last night, near the White Hart, and who appeared as if he had already taken considerable punishment, was allowed to go without conviction. Laeoeny. —Charles Dee was brought up accused of stealing a awag, valued at 30s, the property of Thomas Hussey. He appeared to be suffering from the effects of driuk, and was remanded till the 27th inst. Highway Eobbbey. —John Leishman, on remand from Otago, was charged with this offence. J. MacFarren, a carpenter residing at Sydenham, said that about 10 or 11 o’clock p.m. on 22nd June last, he was accosted by a tall man wearing a high Yankee hat, who walked down Colombo street in conversation with him. They turned on to the South belt when his companion garroted him, and stole his watch. In explanation of what he called “ garroting,” witness said the man placed his hand on his breast, and tripped him backwards. The watch was snatched from his vest while ho was down, and his pockets rummaged. His assailant then ran away along Manchester street. Witness went home, got a receipt he had for the purchase money for the watch, and took it to the police office, where he laid an information of the robbery. He did not recognise prisoner as the man who robbed him. S. Cohen, pawnbroker, Christchurch, deposed to selling last witness a watch about four years ago. [The police produced the works of a watch, which witness said boro the number of and had a resemblance to the one he had sold to MacFarren.] He said he had never seen two watches of a similar make bearing the same number. Olath Pottolson, a German, a jeweller’s assistant employed by Mrßlith at Timaru, said prisoner brought a watoh to the shop on the 19th of July last for repairs. On examination witness told him it could not bo repaired, as it had been in the water. The watch was then bought by Blith for 10s and the cases were molted. The remaining portions of the watoh were given up to the police on August 19lh ; the numbers on tho cases corresponded with that on tho works, which were those now produced. Detective Warren deposed that he arrested prisoner at Green Island on tho 14th of September. Prisoner, on hearing the charge, said he knew there would be a bother about the watch, and that ho had eold it to a jeweller at Timaru, on July 19th, for 10j. Detective Kirby, of Timaru, escorted prisoner from Timaru to Christchurch on September 16tb. On the passage prisoner, in a voluntary statement, said that the watch had been given to him, with another watch, by one James McDonald, who was his mate; they had oome from Christchurch together. Witness said McDonald was now in gaol, committed for trial on a charge of assault with attempt to rob. Tho evidence was read over to accused, who said he was not guilty of the offence. Ho was then committed for trial at the next sessions of tho Supreme Court.