RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1938, 3 September 1889, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka—Mono vr, Sept. 2, 1889,

[Before John Talbot and J. T. M. Hayhurst, Esqs., J.P.’s.] ASSAULT. Alex. 3?rew v. Anderson. In this case, one of assault, Mr Aspinall appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Hay for defendant. It appeared that the wrong person had been summoned, and the case was adjourned to admit of the re-serving of the summons, costs to stand over. CIVIL CASES. E. Yallenderv. D. Charteris—Claim £3. ■ „ Mr Hay for plaintiff, and Mr Aspinall for defendant. The amount of the claim was admitted, but a set-off of £3, the value of a dog sold, was put in. D. Charteris, carrier, Temuka, said that in the latter part of April plaintiff told him that he wanted a good leading dog, and asked if he knew of one, 1 did him that he had one up country that would suit, and arranged to have it brought down. Defendant subsequently got the dog, and it was arranged that he should try him and if it suited he would keep him. At the end of July plaintiff said that he could not work the dog. The original price mentioned for the dog was £4, but witness, sooner than have any trouble, offered to take £3, The plaintiff had the dog from 13th April until the end of July. It was

understood at the date of sale that plaintiff should have a fortnight’s trial Cross-examined : Did not to his knowledge say that ho had rather plaintiff kept the dog than Kerr. To the best of his belief the arrangement made was for a fortnight’s trial. Did not recollect T. Heoper being present at any conversation between plaintiff and himself. It was at the latter end of July that the plaintiff said the dog would not work. The subject had not been mentioned previously and ho understood the dog was giving satisfaction. The dog was sent back to witness on the 16th August. Four pounds was fixed as the price of the dog at the time MrjYallender got possession: Subsequently he complained, and witness, sooner than cavil about it, agreed to make the price £3, In one account he had charged £3 10s, because he had two dogs for sale and had momentarily confused the prices of them. Mrs Yallender had brought the dog back to his place, but he bad released it and it returned to plaintiff. Evan Yallender, butcher, Temuka, stated that he had arranged with de-

fendant to take the dog in question if it suited him. Defendant said that he could have a fortnight, a month, Qj three months trial, and if it did not suit him it would not matter, as he (defendant) could always lay hands 1 on him, and he (defendant) would prefer plaintiff keeping the dog than that Kerr should have him. Eventually got the dog from Mr Wiltshire. Often met defendant, and had a chat. Had told him the dog seemed strange, as though it had been broken in by a Scotchman. Thought he had complained of the dog within a fortnight. Charteris said that _ when the dog got accustomed to him it would fall into his ways, and he accordingly kept it. Had received a hill from Charteris, in which the dog was charged at £3 10s. Told him that even if he kept the dog it should not be charged at more than £3. Afterwards returned the dog. Charteris was absent. Mrs Charteris ' said that she was not to take charge of it; In cross-examination witness was

certain that he was to hove the trial as mentioned. He kept the dog, thinking it would fall into his ways. He did not speak Gaelic, and did not swear at the dog. He was to have been furnished with a collar and .receipt. T. F. Hooper, farm laborer,Temuka, said that ho was present at a conversation between plaintiff and defendant about the latter cud of May, Ohartens said that be had seat to

Kerr about the dog, but that he had received no answer. £3 was mentioned as the price of the dog, and plaintiff could have any trial he liked, Kemarked that Kerr might have lost the dog. Charteris said he would sooner Yallender had the dog than Kerr. Eees Thomas, farmer, Temuka: Had seen plaintiff working the dog. It was not obedient. It was fairly worked, but was not under control, It kept about half a mile away. The Bench were of opinion that plaintiff had kept the dog an unreasonable length of time, and they would therefore allow the set-off.

H. Goodey v. W. Wheelbaud —Claim £2' 15a 6d, balance of wages due. Mr Salmond appeared for plaintiff and Mr Wilson Smith for defendant.

In this case plaintiff put in a claim for £6 5s for wages, and this amount was allowed. He, gave credit for sundry items, amounting to £3 9s 6d, and claimed the balance. Defendant put in a contra account, composed partly of items already credited and of other sums, amounting in all to £7 13s. Plaintiff and defendant were each examined at length as to the items in dispute, hut the evidence on the subject was by no means clear, as neither party had kept any proper books. Defendant claimed to have lent plaintiff the sum of 30s, and further that there was an old balance due to him from a previous account. After a tedious examination judgment was given for plaintiff for the amount claimed, less 80s, with costs against defendant of 15s. J. A. Young v J. J. Heap claim £2, judgment summons. Mr Salmond for defendant, Defendant was examined as to his means, and stated that since judgment had been obtained against him he had earned £2 from Mr McSheeby Gentleman and had also worked odd hours for Mr Aspinall. Had perhaps worked for a fortnight. His pay was a shilling an hour. Had not been paid yet. Had recived a shilling in cash and a cheque for £ll9s from Mr Gentlemun. Cashed tho cheque at Coira’s and gave Mrs Heap £llßs to purchase necessaries with. G. McSheeby Gentlemun objected to giving evidence unless paid his expenses. Ha subsequently went into, the box, and in reply to plaintiff said, that be, witness, had stated that morning that he had paid defendant odds and ends of money for services rendered. Had given a cheque to him for 395. In all had only paid him £2. The Bench were satisfied defendant could have paid a portion of the amount if he chose, and made an order for the payment of 5s per week, tho first payment to bo made on 9th September, in default of any payment 7 days imprisonment. The Court then rose.