DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2142, 6 January 1881, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

CHRISTCHUEOK. Wednesday, Jane ah y 5. [[Before His Honor Judge Ward.] COOPER T THE QUEEN. Mr Spackman appeared for the plaintiff, Mr T. S. Dunoan representing the Crown. Mr Joynt, on behalf of Mr Dunoan, for the defence. This was a claim of £67 5s lid, for goods sold and delivered. The following completes the report of this case, a portion of which appeared in yesterday’s issue : Mr Joynt opened the case for the defence, and called evidence, the witnesses examined being Mr Kerrow, of the Railway Department, and Mr T. B. Craig, the commission agent concerned in the question at issue. Counsel then addressed the Court, Mr Joynt submitting that the plaintiff could not recover, on several grounds ; the bills of sale, in the first place, being a fraudulent preference ; secondly, the power of seizure and sale had never accrued to He further contended that the purchase of the property by the mortgagee (that is, by Cooper through his father) at the sale by public auction under the bill of sale was illegal, and that the plaintiff could not claim the property against the trustee in bankruptcy, having become possessed of it in such a manner, and that the plaintiff ’s action generally was such as to indicate that he made no personal claim on the amount for which the sleepers were sold, that, in fact, he entertained no objection to the money being paid to Hamilton, according to original arrangement, Mr Joynt quoted authorities in support of his argument. Mr Spackman having replied, His Honor said it was impossible to come to a judgment on the facts as they stood ; it was a clear case for a nonsuit, Mr Joynt asked that judgment should be given for the defendant, as plaintiff bad not elected to be nonsuited. Mr Spackman asked if his Honor would give judgment for defendant. His Honor said ho had not sufficient material before him to say what amount, if any, the plaintiff was entitled to, and if he would not take a nonsuit, judgment must be given on the other side. Counsel for plaintiff ultimately agreed to take a nonsuit, which was recorded with oosts against plaintiff. The Court then adjourned. Thursday, January 6. [Before his Honor Judge Ward.] TBBADWBEIi V BESSB. There was no appearance of the parties and the case was struck off. BUTTEBEIEIiD T BHHSK. This was an action in which plaintiff, Arthur Butterfield, aged nice, by his next friend, William Stoning, sought to recover £IOO damages, and £2 7s 6d doctor's fees, on account of his having been bitten in the right arm by a dog belonging to the defendant. The r.ffair took place in Kilmore street on the 10th of November. Defendant denied the fuels.

Ann Butterfield, mother of plaintiff, deposed to tho boy returning homo, on the day named, badly bitten. She then went to defendant, who said he had beard of the accident and had given the dog a good thrashing. He offered to provide medical attendance for the boy, who wag, in fact, taken by Mrs Winstona to Dr. Deamor for examination. Defendant told witness tho dog was of a playful disposition; it had bitten defendant in the arm once, but had not, up to that time, been known to interfere with children. Defendant exhibited to witness tho scar of tho bite on his own arm. The boy suffered considerably, and his arm was not strong yet. Cross examined—Defendant did not say the soar he showed was caused by a dog’s bite received in England. Tho boy was out end in tho house the day after tho accident—in bed sometimes ; he was suffering severely. Mrs Winstons did not toko the boy to the doctor as- a favor, because witness was unable to go herself. Dr. Irving gave evidence of the extent of the injury sustained by the boy. lie had

examined the bite, which he described to bo of a rather serions nature. Tnero was a wound above the wrist tight across the arm j the muscles were lacerated. It was an open, wouud, half an inch to five-eighths of an inch deep. It was in a stale of nuppuration. There was danger at one time of erysipelas setting in. The boy must have suffered considerable pain. Full action had not been regained at the present time. Mrs Baldwin, aunt of plaintiff, corroborated the evidence ot the last witness in the main. Arthur Butterfield detailed the circumstances of the attack by the dog. The dog followed Mrs Winstone out of her garden. He had often seen the dog, before tho accident and since, chained up in Winstone's garden. When the dog attacked witness, Mrs Winstone did not try to take him off. Witness did not in any way interfere with tho dog. Cross-examined : There were two other dogs with the dog which bit him, one of them resembled him somewhat. Did not remember telling Dr Deamer that he did not know which dog bit him. Re-examined : When ho told Mrs Whinstono it was her dog which had bitten him, she did not deny the ownership. She never denied it.

Joseph Beod, a boy about seven years old, who was in company with plaintiff at the time, corroborated his story. He further said, the dog which bit Butterfield has not heen destroyed; it was chained up at Winstone's yesterday. Allard, a still smaller boy, 'gave evidence similar to last witness.

Dr- Deamer, for the defence, deposed to plaintiff's telling him ho did not Enow to whom tho dog belonged which had bitten him.

Mrs Winstone stated that her dog never left her side at tho time of the alleged attack. Her taking tho boy to the doctor was simply an act of kindness. She corroborated Dr, Deamor’ii evidence. Her dog had a collar on. Cross-examined—Plaintiff told her tho dog which bit him had no collar on. She was quite certain her dog was close to her when sho saw plaintiff before her crying, after he had been bitten. She did not see him bitten, or any dogs near him. She did not know that the boys said her dog had bitten him before Mrs Buttei field and Mrs Baldwin visited her.

Defendant gave evidence. He denied having made the statement of his being bitten by the dog, the thrashing, <to. Grace Winstone, daughter of defendant, a little girl, swore that, being in company with, her mother, she had the dog in view all the time, and it had not bitten the plaintiff. This concluded the evidence. His Honor said the case seemed to be involved in a fog of perjury. Counsel having addressed the Court, His Honor said he was sorry this case had not gone to a jury. In the face of the contradictory evidence and the balance of credibility on either side, he found it impossible to deal with it. Plaintiff nonsuited without costs. The Court then adjourned.