RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT; AHAURA.

Grey River Argus, Volume XIV, Issue 1771, 9 April 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT; AHAURA.

Saturday, April 4. (Before 0. Whitefoord, Esq., R.M.) Newcombe v. Fox and O'Neill. — This was a claim of L2O, as damages for the destruction and injury of a number «f sheep, the property of the plaintiff by the dogs of the defendants. The parties are farmers and neighbors at the Haupari, a settlement .about twenty miles from Ah aura, on the Amuri road. On the 7th March, at 2 o'clock in the morning, the plaintiff, ..hearing an uproar in his sheepfold, proceeded to discover the cause, when ho found two dogs worrying. his sheep. He .caught one of the dogs, which he knew to be the defendant's property; and fastened the animal with a flax string to a post, He tried to catch the other dog, butdid'.not succeed, and on coming to where lie had tied the first one, he found the animal had strangled itself. He went several times to the house of, the defendant O'tfeill, to induce hint to come and see the damage his dog had done. The defendant came at length, and the plaintiff pointed out to him 13 or 14 sheep dead or dying, from the effects of the injuries inflicted upon them ! by the dogs. The defendant said he would replace the sheep destroyed, or pay for them, but. he eventually refused to ido so. Tne defence was that the defendants were not liable in law, -and that if they were, the number of sheep stated to be injured was overrated, and the price set upon them. was excebsije. The defendants also alleged that the plaintiff had wilfully destroyed a valuable dog of the defendants, and that thia alone vas more than an equivalentfor the loss sustained by him. It was 'moreover contended that , the .plaintiff had altered the- figures 'in his I ' bill of par-

ticulars, so that he now claimed L2O instead of LlO, as it was written originally, and that this alteration showed that he considered LlO would .be ample recdm-.. pense for any loss inflicted upon him. Patrick O'Neill, one of the defendants, said the number of sheep destroyed and injured amounted to. five ldlled,and,f our, torn, and that the animals were worth Is 6d each at the outside; ( The paddock in which the sheep were was not fenced in one part, and that might, account :f or the disappearance of the rest of the flock. He bad offered to replace or pay for thje sheep killed and missing -according to .the plaintiff's estimate, provided he (Newcome) would pay for the dog .he • had killed, but he refused. The rest of the evidence was chiefly as to the assessment of the quality and value of the sheep. The Magistrate said any person :in the position of the plaintiff would be justified in destroying the dog, but when it became a question of damages, the fact that the dog, which was sworn to have been a valuable one, was killed should be taken into consideration. The plaintiff riiight not have- deliberately destroyed the animal, but it was destroyed, and the defendants had suffered a loss in consequence. It would be better in similar circumstances that the life of the offending animal should :be preserved if possible, for it might happen that a dog worth from L3O to L4O might be destroyed after committing a trifling damage, which damage could berecovered • •at law. Still the plaintiff had ; acted within the law, even, if he had wilfully killed the dog, and he was entitled to dam-ges, but not to the amount claimed, which the Court considered was excessive. Judgment for the plaintiff for L 6 damages, with 303 expenses and the costs of the suit. Mr Staite for the defendants. The Trustees in the estate of Geo. Muir v. John Potts.— A claim of Lson an IQTJ. The defendant admitted that the TOU produced was his, but put in a contra account of L 3 10s, value received by the plaintiff. Mr fitaite, for the defendant, moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that the names of the plaintiffs were not set outin the sun> mons. The Court over-ruled the point, and allowed the summons to bs amended by the insertion of the name of .the executors. Mr W. H. Barrett proved the giving of the IOU by the defendant*, and produced his authority to appear for the executors. The set-off was for water supplied at Hatter's Terrace, Nelson Creek^ from the water-race of the defendant lor the use of the late Mr Muir and of his executors, before the public sale of.the property took place. The defendant 'cxi plained some of the uses to which the executor put the water. The Court allowed the set-off, and gave judgment for the plaintiffs for LI 10s, with costs.; J Same v. George Anderson;-^A .claim of L67son an IOU. The defendant did noj; appear, and judgment was given ; for the plaintiff by default, with costs. ■ Same v. Erancis Kent. — A. claim of L 49 13.3 7d, for goods supplied at Nelson Creek in 1868 and afterwards. The defendant admitted the debt. He said he had been for the last two years extending his head water-race, and had not saved 253 per we<;k. He paid L 5 off the account at Christmas, and the share he held in the race was held iv the name of one Anderson, who had a lien upon it to a small amount. The Bench suggested that this debt should be paid off, and that the de L f ©nclant-should-trauafer his interest to the executors as security for the -larger debt, Mr Barrett, who appeared for the trustees^ said he had no option, and the Magistrate pave judgment for the plaintiffs for^the amount claimed, with costs, the debt to be liquidated by instalments of 15s per week, the order to be varied it the claim of the defendant should begin to- pay better. ... .' '!.!' i Fox and O'Neill y. Boberts.— A /claim of Ll4 3s 2d, for beef, &c, supplied^ak Napoleon Hill in 1871. The defendant admitted the liability to one-fourth the amount, which he was ready to pay. He was one of a party of four miners who contracted, the debt, and the, Court, in| formed him that he was responsible to the plaintiff for. the whole, ampunt-p-L5 to'bfe paid forthwith, and the balance m ; ,one month, the plaintiff to have a transfer of the defendant's mining property, as security in the meantime. Mr.Sjtaite fpt the plaintiffs. -.-..'.:..■ ' \ White and Garth v. Pennefather.-r Evidence was taken and judgment reserved until the 10th April; ■' i! : . • ; • The Court then adjourned. ,