WARDEN'S COURT—22nd July.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume III, Issue 177, 26 July 1872, Page 5

WARDEN'S COURT—22nd July.

(Before H. W. Robinson, Esq., Warden.)

Harwood v. Ah Pah.—This was a complaint that the defendant had interfered with a tail race, the property of complainant, situate in Enterprise G-ully, by breaking down and washing away the banks thereof. Mr. Koss, who appeared for the defendant, stated that it was absolutely: necessary to a proper understanding of the case that the Warden should visit and inspect the ground, which, being done, a judgment was taken }>y consent, without going into evidence, to the effect that the defendant should, be allowed three days to wash up his race, and thereafter cease interference.

.RESIDENT MAO IST i A.'VKS COi riiT.r—July 22. (Before H. W. Robinson, Esq., R.M )

Bradley v. Murphy.—Claim £l4 55., amount due for wages No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount claimed, with 16s. costs. ,

Connell v. Same.—Claim, £4 55., being £2 ss. for wages, and £2 for money lent. No appearance. Judgment for amount claimed with costs.

Pescio v. Same.— Claim, £6 12s 6d. for -goods sold and delivered. No appearance. Judgmerit for the amount claimed, with costs 10s. Aitken v. Same —Claim, £6l 6s lOd for goods sold and delivered. Beducod to £SO to briug it within the jurisdiction of the Court. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for the amount claimed, with. costs, £ 1 3s. In all the above cases warrants of distress were applied for and granted. Aitken v. P. M. Moroney. —The complaint in this case was the illegal detention by defendant of a brown .retriever dog, the property of plaintiff. A plea of denial, was put in. The evidence of Aitken proved that about six. weeks ago he purchased from one Isaac Parfit u brown retriever dog, which he lost the following day. Subsequently he heard that the dog was in possession of' the defendant, and several times demanded its restitution, which was always refused. Some time last week plaintiff went to the residence of the defendant, where lie saw the dog and recognised it as the same which he had lost, hence the present action. The defendant applied for a nonsuit on the ground that the summons was informal, the animal being designated a retriever dog, whereas in reality he was only a puppy. Here the defendant explained that there were yarious kin s of dogs—iron dogs for instance—but he never heard of a species called retriever. The Bench overruled the objection, stating that the object of the summons was effected, seeing that it had brought him to Court. Here commenced a cross-examination of plaintiff by defendant, one of the most droll which we have ever heard in a Court, keeping the audience in a roar of laughter, from which the presiding Magistrate could not at times refrain from joining. After the evidence had been completed his Worship said that he had no doubt whatever; that the dog in possession of the defendant was the one lost by the plaintiff, and the only question with him was the value. Aitken valued the dog at about £4 or £5, but admitted that he had purchased it off Parfit for £l, and Parfit admitted that to have been „ the price which he himself had paid for it, stating however that when tlie dog should be a little older, his value would be £5 or thereabouts. The Magistrate commented severely upon the conduct of defendant, and said that, for a less offence than the present, persons had been betore now comrnitted for doicstealiug. Taking into consideration the price paid on two occasions for the dog-he would make an order that the dog be restored to the plaintiff forthwith, or in default defendant to pay the sum of 30s. as its value, with the expenses of two witnesses 10s. each, and 9s. 6d. costs of Court.