RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Issue 1642, 1 October 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

♦ (Before H. M'Culloch, Esq.,B.M\) Ludlam v. Frederick. — -Claim for £2 3s 6d. for ho-se hire. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs, 9s. Lewis v. Johnston. — This was an action to recover £;io, being value of a working bullock killed by a bull-stag, the property of the defendant, and further exnense and loss incurred. Mr Wade for plaintiff, Mr Macdonald for defendant. George Lewi=, the plaintiff, stated that on the llth inst., he was driving a team of working bullocks up the Messrs Lockhart's tramway in tho Seaward Bush, when he met the bull-star, belonging to Johnston. The bull-stag rushed at one of his bullocks and gored him repeatedly. Even after the bullock fell down he continue 1 to gore him on the ground, making holes in his back with his horns. Managed at last to drive the bull-stag away. A man named MK^nzie came to hia assistance, and otayed with the bullocks while he went to town fbr Du>dop, the veterinary surgeon. When he and Dunlop came hick the bullock was dead. Had known the bull-stag for some years. He was always ferocious, and once or twice before had attacked witness's bullocks, but never did any serious injury. The bull-stag once drove one of witness's bu'locfcs down a railway cutting. The bull-stag was the property of Allai Johnston. Had told defendant that the bull-sta^ hi I injured one of his bullocks, and that he was dangerous. Valued the buliock killed at £20 ; he was a near-side leader, and he could not get another so good. The whole team had been spoiled by his loss. Would not have soid him for £20. Had also the expense of getting Sir Dunloi, and two men driving the team next day. Will lose £5 or £6 a month for the ccx'- three months in consequence of not having the leader that was killed. . Peter B -own, carter, and Thomas Gillies, bushman, gave some further evidence as to the circumstances, of no material importance. Andrew Dunlop, veterinary surgeon, proved that the bullock died from the wounds inflicted. For the defendant, Mr Macdonald contended that he had no knowledge of the mischievous character of the animal, and called Allan Johnston, the defendant, who stated that he had bought the animal in question from Mr Angus, as a bull, and had castrated him. Did not know that he was dangerous, and defon lant had never told him so. Defendant did tell him that he had once pushed a bullock of his over a railway cutting, but he thought nothing of it, aa the bullock was a quarrelsome beast. Albert Adams state.l that he had driven Lewis's team, and that it could be driven as well without the leader that had been killed as with him. Had known the bull-stag for years, and never thought he was dangerous. Thomas Roff stated that lie knew the bull-stag, and never considered hioi dangerous. For tbe defence, Mr Macdonald contended that there was no liability -unless it could be shown that the defendant was aware of the dangerous character of the animal which had done the mischief. The only proof which had besn advanced that he was aware of this, was that he knew that the bullstag had once pusued a bullock over a railway cutting, but a contest between animals of the same kind, which might have ended in this manner, was an occurrence so common that it could not be held as a proof of % ferocious disposition. It might have been different if the bull-stag had been shown to have attacked animals of another kind, or human beings, but this had not been done. On this point he rested bis defence. Mr Wade, for the plaintiff, contended that the fact of defendant having been told that his bullstag had pushed the bullock over the railway cutting ought to have been suflicient warning to him of the dangerous character of the animal. - His Worship held that while the circumstances clearly showed that the animal was dangerous, there was no evidence to show that defendant was aware of the fact, and that unless that could be proved, he could not be held liable for the damage. —Judgment for defendant, with costs, £3 4a. Monday, 30th Sepiestbbb. Lawrence Fenaghty was charged by the police with stealing a pocket-book containing &ii and

some "-aluahle documents, the property of one A rchibald Macdonald. Mr Wade for the defence. Archibald Macdonald stated that he and Fenagbty had been drinking at the Carriers' Arms on Saturday evening last, and were both rather the worse of liquor. Fenaghty offered to make % bet that he could" buy up all tbe eggs in town. Macdonald g»Tp lii?" pocket -book to a. boy, son of the landlord, to ho}d„3?evsghtj got tbe book from the boy,' and went out with it. Witness thought it W»B a lark, saw Fenaghty on the street, but he Would not give back the money. Robert Galbraith, the boy referred to, corroborated the previous witness's statements. Fenaghty said he could buy all the eggs in town in nine minutes. It came to a bet of £100. Macdonald gave witness his pocket-book to hold. Fenaghty pnt down two five pound notrs, and a deposit receipt for £56 odd. Witness held out the pocket-book, and told Macdonald to put it in his pocket- Fenaghty said, " Don't gire it him," lifted his hand 'as if to strike witness, and took the pocket-book out of his hand. Witness had previously opened the pocket-book ; it contained £22. Fenaghty told Macdonald to back the deposit receipt, hut Macdonald only laughed at him. Fenaghty "then took up his two five pound notes and the deposit receipt, put them into his pocket, along with the pocket-book, and told Macdonald he would have to go to court before he would get his money. He then left the room. "ismc£ona\& laughed and sat in his chair for about five minutes before he went after him. Constable Pennefather stated tbat he arrested the accused on Saturday evening, at the instance of Macdonald, who ebsrged him with having taken his pocket-book. Fenagbty admitted having the pocket-book, but said he had got it by means of a bet. He gave up the pocket-book at once ; it contained £22 in notes, and some papers. Fenaghty was not sober, but he knew what he was. doing. Mr Wade stated that the prisoner had really ODly meant to keep the money until he could decide the bet by buying all the eggs in town, and that as a matter of fact he had actually invested largely in eggs. Prisoner made a statement to the same effect ; he .went along buying eggs as fast as he could to win the bet. He" had about £900 in cheques and other securities on him, and he did not think there were more eggs in town than that would buy. It was his intention to mortgage all his property, if necessary, to win the bet. Stephen Faby corroborated tbe prisoner's statements about the bet, and said he went with him to Ekensteen and Hall's, where he bought about 50 dozen of eggs, for the purpose of the bet. John Sayers, in the employment of Messrs Fkeneteen and Hall, stated that the prisoner bought two tubtuls of eggs — about 30 dozen. His Worship stated that there had evidently been a drunken bet made, and that the accused seemed to have some idea that he was entitled to keep the money until the bet was decided. There was no eTidence to show any felonious intent, and the prisoner would be discharged. The pocket-book, with the £22, would be given bade to Macdonald, and Bis Worship would advise him to take more care of it for the iuture, and Dot to get drunk. Mr Wade applied to have his client's expenses allowed. His Worship — " No, certainly not. If a man gets drunk, and gets into a scrape like tbis, he mu&t pay for it himself." M'lntosh v. Feters —Claim for £1 10s, livery charges, &c. Mr Matthews for del en iant. Plaintiff was nonsuited, on the ground that Mr M'Kab, of Knapdale, who was using Peters's vehicle at the time, bad been debited with the amount in the plaintiff's books, on the representation of Mr _TQueen, who accompanied Mr M'Nab at the time, and transacted his business for him. = l