Untitled

Lyttelton Times, Volume V, Issue 301, 19 September 1855, Page 5

' To the Editor of the Times. M'CHEANK V. ANDREWS. Sib, —This was » summons taken out by myself against Samuel Henry Andrews of Lyttelton for the recovery of ten shillings, the value of two fowls, wilfully and maliciously poisoned by the said S. H. Andrews. The summons was returnable yesterday, and I attended at the Resident Magistrate's Court to prove the facts of the case and the illegality of the act. When the case was called, the newly-ap-pointed magistrate (H.J. Tancred, Esq.,) asked if the defendant was present, and, upon being informed that he was not, determined neverthe- - less that the case should be gone into for the purpose of adjudication. I then under protest stated that the defendant resided next to me, and that his garden and my back premises were merely divided by an open rail. That the defendant had designedly and intentionally, and for the purpose of enticing my fowls, placed in his garden grains of wheat or other corn impregnated with arsenic or other poison for the purpose of destroying the fowls in question, and as many others as might be enticed thereby, without ever even iuforming me of his intention of doing so, or even indeed remonstrating with me in reference to the fowls trespassing upon his land. The Resident Magistrate without further evidence, or rather for the want of further evidence, gave judgment against me, and condemned me in the costs. I appeal to you to allow me through the medium of jour journal to use the boon of your publication to state that I have since consulted with two gentlemen educated in the law, but not in practice, and therefore free from the imputation of bias; and they state without fear or favour— Ist, that when the case was called and the defendant did not appear, that the Resident Magistrate ought, to have required proof of the service of the summons, upon proof being given that it was served, and the defendant not appearing, that judgment by default ought to have been given in my favour as a matter of course, or, at the very least to have adjourned the hearing, the defendant paying the costs of such adjournment. Had the defendant been present,! should have been able to have proved what the Resident Magistrate seemed to require, but as it is it would appear, you cannot compel a defendant to appear as it is not necessary for him to take notice of a summons, neither does the Magistrate care to know whether his summonses are served or not. Now as touching the law. In the case of Townseud v. Wathen, 9 East, 277. It was decided that if a man place dangerous traps, baited with flesh in his own ground so near to a highway, or to the premises of another, that dogs passing along the highway or kept on his neighbour's premises must probably be attracted by their instinct into the £rap, and in consequence of such act his neighbours dogs be so attracted and thereby injured,—an action on the case lies. See ul.mi Bird v. Holhrook, 4 Bing, 628; 1 AI and P, 607 ; S. P. Jay v. Whitfield, 3 Baud A 308 c,4 Bing, 644 c." Having then common sense, the rules of practice, and the decisions of law in my iavour, I appeal to any ordinary thinking man whether I can feel other than dissatisfied and aggrieved; but, as the facts of the case are too monstrous to require comment, I will conclude as Your obedient servant, Thus. M'G'heake, M.D. Lyttelton, Sept. 18th, 1855.