Untitled

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume XIII, Issue 545, 23 January 1868, Page 3

Smith v. Lopdell. —ln the Resident Magistrates Court, on Tuesday, J. A. Smith sued J. Lopdell for 10s damages, for pailings which it was alleged defendant pulled off a dividing fence. Defendant said that be had pulled the pailings off bis own fowl-house.—Case dismissed, with costs.

Dtett v. M'Mubhat. — A second ease having reference to the unfortunate goat mentioned last week was heard on Tuesday, Mr James M'Murray was sued by Mr F. Dyett for the sum of £2 damages for the detention of a milch goat. Mr Lee appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Cuff for defendant. The plaintiff stated that in November he sold a he goat to the defendant for £l, and left a she goat, the property of his little girl, with it to keep it company. He did not sell the she goat to him. Some time in December, on his asking defendant how his credit stood, the latter read to him the entries in his book, in which the he goat was insluded, but not the other. That about the Ist Dec. he sold the goat to Mr Hawes, in the Shamrock Hotel, and afterwards mentioned this to Mr M'Murray, who told him that he -had been feeding the goat on oats, which he would charge to his (plaintiffs) account. That he had sent an order to defendant to deliver the goat to Mr Hawes, Mr R. GK Hawes deposed that in December he bought a milch goat, near kidding, from Mr Dyett, that the goat was running near the Shamrock Hotel, when ha left it. That on going for it afterwards he found that Mr M'Murray was using the goat, and had given the kids away. In answer to his claim Mr M'Murray said that Dyett owed him a bill, and that he would stick to the goat, but on another occasion told him that ho had bought it. The defendant said that on the sth September he bought a he goat of the plaintiff; and on the 23rd a she goat, that no money passed but that he entered the transaction in his ledger, which was posted nightly. [Ledger produced]. Dyett, when speaking of the goat afterwards called it “your little goat.” That afterwards Mr Hawes came and claimed it. and he would not have anything to do with him. That Mr Dyett told him after this that he had sold the goat to Mr Hawes, and that he told him that he had no right to do so. That he afterwards received an order from Dyett to deliver up the goat te Mr Hawes or he would make it unpleasant for him, which he disregarded. That Hawes came several times about the goat, and that he finally told him that if he did not go away he would punch his head. In reply to a cross-exauiinafcion by Mr Ls? Ha giiid tbst he knew nothing whatever ef the transaction between Hawes and Dyett until the former claimed the goat. The Magistrate considered it a clear case that the goat was originally sold to M Murray, and accordingly gave judgment for defendent, with /jnata i