Dyett v. M‘Mubray.—A second case 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 hiß asking defendant how his credit stood, the latter read to him the entries in his book, in which the he goat was. included, but not, the other. That about the Ist Deo. 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 lie would charge to his (plaintiffs) account. That he had. sent an order to defendant to deliver the goat to Mr Hawes, Mr Hi G. 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 he 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 he 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, whichwa« posted nightly.,. [Ledger produced]., Dyett, when speaking of the goat, afterwards oaHed it “your little goat.” That, afterwards Mr’ Hawes came and claimed itj and he would not Have anythingjbo" dp..:with- him.', ,:That Mr- Dyett told Sim.' that .he. had sold, the goat'to Mr Ha\yes, and' that he told him that he had ho right to do so. That he afterwards received an order, from Dyett to deliver up thh goat te Mr, Hawes or he it unpleasant for .him, which he disregarded, v That Hawes.came several toldaway;he would : punCh;’ His' Head.' ' The Magistrate considered it a blear oase that the goal: was originally accordjudgment for; defendant*- with OOSto£3.ss.- ; * - .'s . .• - 'M' V 'V :
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HBWT18680127.2.23
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Hawke's Bay Weekly Times, Volume 2, Issue 56, 27 January 1868, Page 23
Word count
Tapeke kupu
415Untitled Hawke's Bay Weekly Times, Volume 2, Issue 56, 27 January 1868, Page 23
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.