RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1956, 15 October 1889, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tbmfka—Monday, Oct. 14, 1889. [Before J. Talbot and K. E. dray, Esqs., J.P.’s.] DISTURBING WORSHIPPERS. Henry Davis did not appear in answer to a summons charging Mm with having created a disturbance at the Salvation Army. Constable Egan proved service of the summons, and stated that on the night in question Davis was in the Salvation Army with a blackened face, and created a disturbance there. Witness brought him down to Nicholas’s stables, and got him to wash his face. Asked why he blackened his face, and he said he had been turned out of the Army, and could not get in again. He only did it for a lark. George Smart stated that Davis was one ©f those who disturbed the meeting. He came with his face black, and caused a great deal of disturbance. He was put out during the evening, and came back with a blackened face. As the defendant did not appear a warrant was issued for his arrest, and the case adjourned till next Wednesday morning at 8.80 a.m. CIVIL CASES. George Philips v. C. McAaliffe— Claim £5. Mr Salmond appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Hay for defendant, Mr Salmond explained that the action was hi ought to recover damages sustained by the plaintiff through having been thrown from his horse by a dog of the defendant’s rushing at him. G, Philips stated that on the 23rd August he was riding along Denmark street when a dog belonging to the defendant ran out at the horse, He was thrown off the horse and was rendered unconscious, and was ten days in bed. He was one month unable to work. He paid £1 13s for medical attendance, and had to employ a man to do his work, for which he paid £llss. ;To Mr Hay; Ido not know what age the dog was. It was large, if it was a pup. 1 did not say it was more the horse running at the dog than the dog running at the horse. I was not riding carelessly. The girth was not rotten. Mrs King stated that she saw the puppy running after the horse, and saw the man fall off: To Mr Hay: I saw the puppy run out. It did not bark. C. McAuliffe stated the puppy was only 4 months old, and belonged to his son. Went to see Mr Philips, who said he was riding with the reins loose. This was on the 25th August. Ho knew nothing about the accident, Charles McAuliffe, never knew the pup to bark at horses. Philips told witness his hors® ran after the pup, the reins went on the horse’s ears, and he had no control over them. The girth broke and he fell off. Charles Claridge, stated he was present working. The puppy when Philips passed by first was playing with the children and took no notice of the horse. When Mr Philips returned the puppy ran across the street, Saw Philips fall, and went to his assistance.

To Mr Salmond: I saw nothing else to account for the accident except the puppy.

William Fawdray, stated that he did not know what was the cause of the accident, but saw the man fall; he would not have fallen only for the girth breaking. To Mr Salmond: It is quite reasonable to suppose the dog caused the accident.

Mr Hay addressed the court, arguing that it was due to Mr Philips’s own contributory negligence. He was riding with a loose rein and his girth broke; his horse was vicious and kicked him. The accident was, therefore, due to careless riding, bad gear, and vicious horse. Mr Salmond denied that there was any evidence to sustain Mr Hay’s line of argument. The Court decided that there was no doubt but the accident occurred on account of the dog, and gave judgment for the amount claimed and costs. The Court then adjourned.