RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume II, Issue 205, 16 September 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Gisborne, Friday, 11th September.

[Before W. K. Nesbitt, Esq., R.M.] BIDGOOD V. BROOKES. Plaintiff sued for £5 damages for the destruction of a cask of ale while in charge of defendant, who, at the time, was in plaintiff's employ as a carter. Negligence was set up as a pica for the action, but the Court held to a different opinion and nou-suited the plaintiff. CROSS V. CLARIDGB. This was a claim for £l4 14s damages alleged to have been sustained through non-delivery of certain fencing material in terms of agreement. Judgment for plaintiff £l2 12s and costs. HARRIS V. HOANI TE HORAKI. This case excited some interest, consisting, as it did, of a claim for £5O the value set by plaintiff as damages for 40 sheep destroyed by defendant's dog. Several witnesses were called on either side, the conflicting testimony of whom, complicated the investigation very aterially. finally leaving it in the hands of counsel to argue out. Mr. Wilson for the plaintiff, argued that his witnesses saw the dog—which they well knew — actually killing the sheep, while Mr. Cuff, for the defendant, contended that the weight of evidence failed to establish the identity of the dog. for the witnesses he had called, positively swore that on the day in question, they had seen the dog on the chain. The Court retired and ultimately gave judgment for £3O and £4 costs.