MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2239, 21 May 1880, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMAEU—THIS HAY. (Boforo E. Beetham Esq., E.M.) DRUNKENNESS. Two inebriates were fined 5s ouch. CIVIL CASES. White v. Allpress—Claim, £ Mr Hamersley for defendant. Judgment was given in this case at a latO: sitting of the Court and. in the absence of the counsel forthedefendant. Mr Hamersley now asked that the case might be reinstated as he was under a misapprehension as to the day of hearing, or would have been present. Mr White, the plaintiff:, raising no objection, the re-hearing of the case was fixed for Tuesday next. Peacock and Gcancy v. Waugh—Claim £5 10s. Mr White for the plaintiff and Mr Hamersley for defendant. This case arose out of a dispute as to the purchase of a cow and calf. H. Gcancy of the firm of Peacock and Gcancy, butchers, Timaru, stated that on April 22 last the defendant purchased a cow and calf from him for the sura of £5. At the time of the sale they were in witness’s paddock at Mount Horrible. After the bargain was concluded witness did - not sec the cow and calf in the paddock, and imagined that the defendant had taken them away. They were in defendants paddock on the Sunday. Found the cow dead on the Monday, and in witness’s own paddock and went and asked defendant what ho was going to do with her. Ho refused to bury her. Witness said ho would bury the cow athis own expense, and he did so —it cost 10s. The defendant had a paddock at Mount Horrible near the paddock of witness and his partner. Originally bought the cow to kill, and finding it was useless for that purpose witness offered to sell it to the defendant; who having seen her offered £5 for. her, and offered to exchange some pigs for her or pay cash. He stated that ho had seen the cow' and milked her.

Henry Richards, employed by the plaintiff:, corroborated his evidence. T. Peacock stated that lie visited the paddock at Mount Horrible on April 26, and saw the cow lying dead there. Geaney asked the defendant what he was going to do with her. Ho said ho had had her in his place all night, milked her, and turned her out again. This was the plaintiff’s case. Alexander Waugh stated that he resided opposite Peacock and Goaney’s paddock at Mount Horrible. Saw Geaney on April 22, and he said he had a cow which was no use to him, and if it was any use to witness he could have it. Witness then left, but returned towards dark, and said “ What about the cow ?” Geaney mentioned £5 as her price, and something was said about an exchange being effected for some pigs. Afterwards went out and saw the cow; it was getting dark at the time, and the cow was lying down and appeared sick and was unable to walk. She was suffering from the milk fever, and drew some milk from her as she lay in the plaintiff’s paddock. Did not buy the cow because she was bad from inflammation. Geaney came to witness’ place on Sunday, and said he had removed the cow and had milked her. Ho admitted having milked the cow, but did not remove her from the plaintiff’s paddock. By Mr White—Took the calf into my own paddock ; but the cow conld not walk. This concluded tho case.

Mr Hamersloy submitted that the plaintiffs must be nonsuited; neither delivery or sale had been proved and the defendant had received no use or benefit. Mr White contended that'it was not necessary to prove a sale of under £lO in value in order to recover, but that the sale had been clearly proved in evidence notwithstanding. His Worship said that he considered the evidence had proved that tho cow was in articulo mortis at tho time of sale. Plaintiffs nonsuited with costs. The Court then adjourned.