RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1822, 29 November 1888, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Gimldine— Wednesday, Nov. 23,1888,

[Before Captain Wray, KM.] DRUNKENNESS. , , . William Coombs was charged with being druok and disorderly on Saturday, Nov.. 18tb. The efface having been proved, Sdant was fined £l, or in default 48 hours' imprisonment. crra cases. . Jane Tindall v..G. B. Mered'tb-Cla.m £3, for the value of a pig knled by def6Mrfw£nSirith appeared for plain-

defendant filed a set-off of 50a for chaff "Tliinliff add that on December 29|h last defendant's bull broke into her stockyard and killed a breeding pig belonging to her She sent word to defendant about it; H nd Mrs Meredith said she was under tfc 9 impression that the pig bad been killed by plaintiff', own cow*. Meredith had told her he would give her saetfaei• p.g fer it. but had not done so, and said afterwards that the pig must have been either shot or lost. Defendant's son had offered her some chaff in p«t payment for the nit She agreed to take some chaff, and took 50 bags. She had since asked defendant for the balance of the pig a value, but had not received it. The pig hadl to be killed as it was so badly gored. The pig was not made use of for food, owing to the state it was in at the time. John W. Tindall, son of the last witness, corroborated the evidence of his mother, but had not seen the pig gored by the boll, and conld not swear the bull had Hone it. The chaff supplied to his aother was wheat straw chaff, very badly cut, and was only worth 6d per bag. Mr O. G. Bradley, called, depossd to the usual price given for chaff being 6d Mr bac. The retail price was 8d per bag. G.'B. Meredith, defendant, sworn, said be wainot at home at the time the pig was killed. His bull was hobbled in his Paddock, and Mrs Tindall's went in and enticed the bull out, and it went down to the stockyard where the pig was. Whether the pig was npp«d by the bull or not be could not say. The pig was seen the day before with plaintiff's own cows, but whether it was ripped by them he could notsay. The Magistrate said that defendant had practically admitted his bull bad done it by pleading the chaff as a set off. In reply to Mr Smith, defendant said he hid sold chaff at 6d per bag, but claimed Is per bag from plaintiff on account of bar exorbitant claim for the pig. He had nbt received a letter from Mr Smith on the 26th September, asking for the balance of the value of the pig. He never heard of the letter till a day or two ago, when he went borne, ts he had been away from home for several weeks. When he did bear of the letter took no notice of it, as be considered the matter of the pig ■ettled by the 50 bags of chaff. A neighbor of Mis Tindall's, who was called as a witness, said that on December 23rd last he,was sitting en a doorstep close to the plaintiff's, when he saw the pig going np to her cows, and one of them rushed st and struck it heavily on the side. Next morning he came down to Mrs Tindall's bouse, and was told the pig bad been gored by the bull; and was dead. He was positive it was on the 24th Dec. Mrs Tindall had told him the pig was dead. Did not go to look at the pig, but plaintiff told him it was dead. He knew the value of the pife. and did not consider it was worth more than £l. Had sold similar pigs for 9<*. Mr Smith pointed out that the pig was ■aid to hav been killed on Dec. 28th. In reply to defendant, the last witness said the pig was not worth more than £l. Mr Smith said he was prepared to call evidence to prove that the pig was not injured by plaintiff's cowb. Plaintiff) recalled, said she saw aud fed the pig upon tho evening that the previous witness said he saw her cows rush it. It was not injured then. She was positive the pig was killed on Dec. 29tb, as she wrote a note lo the constable on that day with regard to the occurrence. aßd kept a memorandum of it. She had named the price at which she valued the pig to defendant, and he made no objection to it. It was worth more than that to her for selling the yonng pigs. Mr B. H. Pearpoint was called, and testified to the cht>ff in question being worth about 6d per bag. He had purchased some of it from defendant. His Worship s«d he would ; like to have the evidence of an independent witness as to the value of tho pig. Mr Smith asked for the case to be adjourned for a few minutes, in order to allow such a witness being obtained. -Finally, Mr Leary was impressed as a witness, bnt be caused some little amusement by stoutly declaring his ignorance of the value of pigs in general, ?nd this pig in particular, His Worship remarking that prebably he did not wish to have anything to say in the matter, finally, His Worship said be had bis doubts as to the pig being worth £3, He would allow £2 for it, and, deducting the value of the chaff supplied as 25?, the judgment would be for the plaintiff for 15s and casts.

This being all the business, the Court adjourned.