RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1350, 9 June 1885, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Gbraldike—Monday, June 8,, 1885. (Before H. C. S. B*ddeley, Esq., R.M., Rev. Geo. Barclay and Dr Fish, J.P.'s.) breach op town board by-laws. The following persons were charged with allowing cattle to wander on the streets within the Town District:— Thos. Farrell, for one calf, fined 10s and costs ; John Dean, nine head cattle, 5s per head and costs ; Mrs Kennedy, one cow, 6s and costs ; N. Dunlop, three head cattle (second offence within year), 10s per head and costs; Jas. Kallaugher, one cow, 5s and coats. TRESPASS. Thos. Twigg was charged by B. Bailey with having trespassed on his larjd, on the 15th of May last, in pursuit of game. Defendant pleaded not guilty. [Dr Fish retired from the Bench while this case was being heard,] B. Bailey, sworn, said ; 1 was on the Waihi Flat between 11 and 12 o'clock on the 15th May. I was riding through ray paddocks, and saw a man in the adjoining paddock to mine. I heard a shot, and rode up and saw two men with three dogs, and the defendant, Twigg, picked up a hare. I went up to them, and they lave me their names. One of the men said he thought he was on Taylor's land, and that they were only going over to Mr Templar's. I asked Twigg to lay down the hare, and he did so, as be said he had shot it on my land. To defendant: I was in the paddock adjoining the one you were in when I first saw you. I saw you pick the hare np. I was about 30 chains from you then. I never said you were trying to get away from me. I believe you did try to get away. [Captain Temple and L. Walker, J.P.'s, here took their seats on the Bench.] Thos. Twigg, sworn, said : On the day in question I was invited out to shoot over Mr Templar's land. We were directed over the downs to his place. We thought we were on Taylor's land. It was only by a mistake we were in Mr Bailey's paddock, and I apologised to him. Mr Bailey: You did not apologise. The other persoa did, and I withdrew the charge against him. If you had apologised then or since 1 would not have taken proceedings. As a heavy fine was not pressed for, but simply a caution required, a fine of 10s and costs was inflicited. ASSAULT. R. Johnson was charged with having assaulted Chas. A. Lloyd on 3rd June, by throwing or causing to be thrown, a bucketful of nightsoil over him. Dr Foster .appeared for defendant. The Bench objected to the information, as there was no distinct charge, and dismissed the case. KEEPING A TEROCIOUS DOG. John Woulfe was cherged with having a dangerous dog in his possession on the 10th May, and that it did on that date rush out and bite one Francis Tetheridge. Both charges were taken together. Dr Foster appeared for the informant, and Mr Lynch for defendant.

James P. Tetheridge : I send my children to Belfield school, and they pass by defendant's house. I have had one child bitten while going to school, and another was bitten on a Sunday. I went to Woulfe, told him the dog had bitten the boy, and asked him to get rid of the dog, and he said he would not. He took me up and Bhewed me some stones on the house, which be said the boy had thrown. He aaid he would not destroy

the (Jog. I took the boy to Dr Fish and he examined him in my presence, The boy is about 14 years nf aga. I could not say when the other boy was bitten, but it was in harvest time. Woulfe was away, and Mrs Woulfe told me to destroy the dog. 1 did not do so then, but I went afterwards and I was not allowed to do it then.

Cross-examined by Mr Lynch : Mr Woulfe never complained to me previous to this of ray children's conduct towards the dog. The first time he said anything about them was on the 10th May, when he shewed me the stones on the roof of the house. He said also that my son had used bad language towards bis child.

Frank Tetheridge : I know Mr Woulfe, and pass his house occasionally. 1 did so on the 10th of May about 10 o'clock. The dog bit me on the leg on that day. I was walking quietly by and the dog flew out through the hedge. It is a retriever dog. I did not see Mr Woulfe, but there were two of his girls there and two boys of Bennett's. The wounds made by the dog bled. I have never thrown stones at the dog.

Cross-examined by Mr Lynch : I have never thrown stones at the dog in my life. No one was near the dog when he came through the hedge. Mary and Hannah Woulfe were inside the house then. I never threw stones on the house or used bad language tc Woulfe's children. Mrs Woulfe never told me not to come near her house, but Mr Woulfe did. Mrs Annals, sworn said : My children pass by Woulfe's house on their way to school. Two of my children were bitten by Woulfe's dog. 1 saw the bite made by the dog on my son Henry's leg. My daughter was bitten on the shoulder, I saw the marks.

Cross-examined by Mr Lynch: I did not see the dog bite my children, but there was no other dog about besides Woulfe's. Mrs Palmer: I know last witness. She has two childreu who go to school. 1 was in the dray at Woulfes' when the boy HeDry was bitten. The boy was on the ground, and I heard him scream out, and the children said lie was bitten. I did not see the wound. I know the dog is Wolfe's. Cross-examined by Mr Lynch : The child was not playing with the dog. I did not see the child tease the dog. Mary Ann Annals, sworn, said : 1 was walking along past Woulfe's house, and the dog came out and bit me. I did not see the dog till after it had bitten me and it was running away.

Cross-examined by Mr Lynch : I was at Woulfe's when the dog bit my brother Henry. He did not tease it as be was afraid of it. It bit me once before.

Thos. Logan : I remember a sister of mine being bitten on the leg. It was about two months ago by Woulfe's dog. I complained to Mr Woulfe. I asked him to destroy the dog and he refused. My sister is about 8 years old. This was the case for the prosecution, and, both sides consenting, without going into the defence, an order was made that the dog be destroyed within 24 hours. The witness Francis Tetheridge wbb neverely cautioned by the Bench as to his conduct towards the Woulfe family. CIVIL CASES. R. H, Pearpoint v. Chas. Woodmun— Claim £5 11 2d.—Judgment confessed. R. Taylor v. Hudson—Claim £3 13a 6d, for an I.o.U.—Judgment by default for amount claimed. Duncan v. Jones —Claim £1 16s. — Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed. J. Kallaugher v. W. Pox—Claim £9 for board and lodging.—Judgment by default for amount claimed.

R. H. Pearpoint v. J. Reardon—claim £5 12s 2d. Judgement summons. Order made that the amount be paid in instalments of 5s per week, in default of one payment one month's imprisonment to ensue.

This being all the business the Court rose.