MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2538, 10 May 1881, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMARU—THIS DAY. (Before R. Beetham Esq,, R.M.) CIVIL CASES. In the following cases judgment was given tor the plaintiff with costs : A. Ormsby v. McKay and another—£5 11s 6d. F. B. Raymond v. J. Cook —£2 8s sd. F. Franks v. H. Dupree —£l 4s. F. Franks v- J. Burns—£l 5b 6d. W. Parsons v. John Cooke — 14s. W. Parsons vJ. Burns —13s. J Muller v. Brosnahan £lO 9s 6d. A. E. Packman v. T. Hampson, £llos. D. Mackenzie T. Hampson, £9 18s. P. Macintyre v. J. E. Hawley, £53 6d, (judgment for £52 19s 6d and costs). Albert Southwood v. James Parsons, £4 8s Judgment for the defendant. Robert Moles v. Smith, £lO. Mr Hamersley for plaintiff; Mr Jameson for defendant. The plaintiff, who resides at Silverstream, stated that he had occasion on or about March 30 to visit Albury. On returning to his home he found his child, six years of age, had been bitten on the right leg by the defendant’s dbg. The wound had now healed up but the child was ill for a week or ten days. James Tait, a shepherd at Silverstream said that he saw the defendant’s dog bite the child. The latter was quietly passing along the road when the dog without any provocation snapped at and bit it.

William Henry Smith, the defendant, said he had warned the boy a bout the dog; the child had a switch in his hand and struck the dog, thus provoking it to bite. The dog was accustomed to play with children and witness had never known it to bite before. Had not shut up the dog since this affair; there had been no occasion to do so. Thomas Winter, another resident of SHveratream, described the dog as being a very quiet one, A number of othei witnesses haying been examined on both sides, 'His Worship said that it had not been shown that the dog was an animal of mischievous propensities, or that the defendant knew that it was so. He would reserve his decision until Tuesday next. Some other cases were also disposed of, but too late for publication in today’s issue.