RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2291, 10 December 1891, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka—Tuesday, Dec. Bth, 1891. [Before C. A. Wray, Esq., R.M.] DOG KEGISTKATION. Henry Smallridge was charged with having an unregistered dog in his possession. There was no appearance of the defendant. Constable Egan stated that the dog had been registered since, but he understood with the registrar of the Temuka Road District, instead of with the registrar of the Town District in which lie resided. Edward Pilbrow, Registrar of the Temuka Town District, stated that the registration ticket produced was one from the registrar of the Road Board district. Defendant lived within the town district. Fined 10s and costs. James Grant, for a similar offence, pleaded that the dog was not over six mouths of age. Edward Pilbrow stated that he knew there was a dog upon the defendant’s premises when the information was laid. It was not registered. Constable Egan, sworn, said that the , defendant had admitted to him that the dog was over six months. James Grant, the defendant, said that he was not aware of the age of the dog. He had it for about two months. Found since it was not six months. Ohas. Story, sworn, said he bred the pup in question. It was pupped the first week in July, Case dismissed. Thomas Gibson was charged with a similar offence. There was no appearance of defendant. Constable Egan proved service of summons. Edward Pilbrow said he had seen the dog upon the premises of Thomas Gibson. The son came and registered the dog since in the name of John Gibson, and . claimed that it was his (the son’s) dog. Case dismissed. James Findlay was charged with a similar offence. Edward Pilbrow, registrar, stated that there was a dog upon Mr Findlay’s premises for several months. Had spoken to Mr Findlay abyut it. Bo did

not disown the dog. He said he should shoot the dog. By Mr Findlay : Had registered a dog last year. Did not recollect any conversation about a dog. Mr Findlay : Last year you registered a dog as being four years old. This year you registered one as being one year old, and without any note of distinctive mark. Why did you do this ? Witness : It must be an omission. The dog for which the summons was issued was not the dog named upon the summons. The defendant said that he had told Mr Pilbrow that he had given a dog away but j expected to get another. He had no | desire to evade the Act, but would register a dog in any case. This was why the details were not filled in. Had told him that he intended to get a dog pup, but could not say its color. The dog he gave away might" have been registered again. The dog was since destroyed. Mr Pilbrow, recalled: Had no conversation whatever about a dog with defendant. Fined 10s and costs. CIVIL CASES, Chaa. Story v. Hape Taipuua—Claim £4lss. Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs. M. McAteer v. John Reid—Ciaim £4 7s. Judgment for £3 15s 6d and costs. P. McGuire v. S. Breadley—Claim £SO for damages. Charles Ernest Thomas, duly qualified medical practitioner, Timaru : Saw the ; plaintiff at the Timaru Hospital on ■ September 2nd. He consulted him for a' ■ strained shoulder joint. It was painful j to move. It was not a serious injury, j He was given a liniment, and told to give J it rest. He should not work it too much the first week. He was stripped and a 1 careful examination made. Gave him no 1 instructions to return. From the ex- i amination concluded he would be able to 1 resume work in about a week. The | shoulder should not have been worse a > week later. There was nothing that was 1 not apparent in the injury. McGuire | ] told him it was accident. Believed he * said it was a pull. A direct pull from a < man upon the same level would not cause an injury without a wrench. The weight i of the body of the man pulled might do 1 the injury. It was quite possible that a < movement of the joint or the rubbing with inflamatory lotions might cause a j < patient to be laid up for montha. It was < quite possible and probable. Very probably told McGuire to come again. It s should not have been a serious injury. ( By Mr Salmond: Believed he Was i informed the injury was recently inflicted at the time he examamined it. A sprain should develops in a few days. Considered if a man found he could not move his arm ' he would realise it was hurt. It was possible, but not probable, that he would think it was only slightly injured. Told < him he was not to move it too much. 1 Intended it was to be kept in a sling, 1 Told him it was sufficiently serious to 2 keep it still for a time. Told him it would be probably right in a week. Did not seriously impress upon him what would 1 happen. Told him the joint would go J wrong, but did not indicate in what way. - To move the arm would hurt him. A 8 slight movement would tend to increase t the'injury. Probably told him to keep 1 his thumb in his waistcoat as a good sling. 8 Presumed he would have assistance to put I his clothes on. Was surprised that he I was laid up for three mouths. There was t no fixed period in which a sprain might I develope. About twenty-four hours at the outside would be the time when a sprain 1 would develope. The lotions witness gave I were not irritating. Did not know the composition of Kugellman’s Electric Essence, There- were plenty of lotions a quite strong enough to irritate a man’s 3 arm. The injury was produced not by a t blow but probably by a wrench. It could not be done by a mere pull, if pulled i straight out. * By Mr Hay : If the patient were unruly, as described by Mr Barclay, and removed the bandages , and altered the I position of his arm, it would account for I the further injury. It was essential that the arm should be kept quiet for the first I week. r

By the Court: Attributed the condition of the arm as described by Dr Barclay to irritation of the arm by undue movements. Told him, roughly speaking, the arm would be well in a week. A fortnight’s time would be ample. Counsel having addressed the Court, His Worship reserved judgment. Thos. McAteer v. Jas. Matthews — Claim £l6 5s 4d for grazing sheep. Mr Salmond for plaintiff, Mr Hay, instructed by Mr White, for defendant. T.' McAteer, the • plaintiff, said the account was correct. He had been paid £3. ' Defendan promised to pay the balance in ten days. Defendant claimed that Some of the sheep were lost while being grazed by plaintiff. Mr Hay was proceeding to crossexamine witness, when it appeared there was a cross action arising out of the case. His Worship suggested that the case should be adjourned untilhext Court day, when the cases could be taken together. Counsel agreeing the case was adjourned for fourteen days by the Court. T. Ellis v. A. White—Claim £l4 Bs. Judgment summons. Mr Perry for the judgment creditor. This case arose out of a judgment obtained in the Court some time back. Thomas Ellis; On the 22nd June recovered judgment against defendant for £l4 Bs, including costs. Previous to recovering that judgment had been working at Elaxburn Mill for Hitchcock and White, and subsequently for White. On the 18th August, 1890, Mr White told him that Hitchcock was not “ the clean potatoe,” and Stumbles (the proprietor) wanted him (White) to buy the mill. He had declined,, but agreed to manage the mill at £3 a week, and Hitchcock was to have nothing to do with it. Defendant said that he was .responsible as manager for Stumbles for the witness’ wages. Plaintiff was to be paid at the rate of 9s per week per head. Would not have gone on cooking if Mr White had not promised payment. Hitchcock took no further part in the arrangement. Mr White after this worked up a lot of green flax. White paid himself out of this. Witness received £6 on account of original claim. Stumbles had refused to pay the balance. White told him that at the time he came to work for Mr Postlethwaite he had £3OO worth of stock locked up in his store at Oxford. Had also told him he had no occasion to work. He only did it to work the

“ corporation ” off him. White had said it was no use to summons, as he would not pay a penny. William James Higgins, flax worker : Knew White and Ellis. White frequently told him that he would not pay Ellis. “ He would sooner take it out in gaol than pay.” Last licensing election day he said if judgment was given against him ha would not pay. Mrs White said if he did not pay she would. This was the gist of a conversation between White and himself. Alfred White : On 22nd June judgment | was obtained against him. Had ndt | made any offer to pay. Had not been able to. Previous to the judgment had said he would not pay. Since the judgment regarded it as a just debt. Left Temuka after the judgment and went to Oxford. Had lived there since, except when looking for work. Had only earned two shillings since. Lived at Oxford at his wife’s place. It was a store next the Police Depot. She also had a house at West Oxford. He made it over to her in 1879. There was about three eighths of an acre. His wife built the store with her own savings. It was worth about £l5O. The house was now let for 6s a week, formerly for 10s. Had only one daughter to keep. She was grown up. Mrs W hite provided everything for himself and daughter. The store was closed while defendant was working in Temuka. The store is now carried on by Mrs White and daughter, who make up articles of needlework. He only had occasional meals, but had been travelling about. He had received £lO on account of wages from Mr Blake, who bought the mill. He had received this after judgment. Blake had since filed. Did not believe Mrs White could give him the money to pay to pay the debt. He was anxious to pay but was not in a position to do so. Had a valuable gold watch, but had given it five years ago to his eldest son. It was given him by the Hon. B. Richardson as a mark of esteem. He had promised it to his son after his death. The watch was practically a certificate. Did not save any money when working at £3 per week. Owed nothing except to Ellis. By the Court: Was prepared to part with the watch. Did not wish to let it go, but would give it as security until he could pay. His Worship suggested that Mrs White could advance the money by instalments on security of the watch. It was arranged that the defendant should send the watch down to the bailiff of the Court, and the case to stand over in the meantime. The Court then rose.