RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3854, 6 May 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAY. (Before H. Kenrick, Esq., K.M.) CIVIL SIDE. Judgments fob Plaintiffs. M. Power v. Keha Aperahama, claim £5 10s, costs £1 Us.—Cloonan r. Gray,; claim £9 7s 9d, goods; costs 11s.—W. McCullough v. Riccardi, claim £15 11s 3d, costs Adjourned Cases. Hosie v. Woods; Phillips t. Reha; McKee v. Douglas; Buchanan v. MeGeehan. LEYDON V. CALDWELL. Claim, £22 7s. John Leydon deposed he knew C. Johnston, who he saw sign a promissory note (produced). The no'e bad not been paid. Hegav'ejiotice to Mr Caltiwell that the bill was dishonoured. Caldwell backed the bill. The defendant appeared in a very excited state, and unfit to give evidence. The Court adjourned the case till tomorrow morning. Defended Cases. i

CBICK V. HITCHING. Mr Brassey for the plain tifl'; Mr Miller ' for the defendant. This case arose from a. bite inflicted by the dog of defendant. W. H. Crick, sworn, deposed—On the morning of April Ist, in Willoughby street, Shortland, he was attacked and bitten by a dog. After kicking the dog off, followed him to ascertain the owner. The doc; ran into Mr Kitching's shop. Mr Kitching was standing in front of the shop talking to two gentlemen. When witness drew his attention to the dog and asked him if he was the owner, he replied i it was. Witness then informed him that he had been bitten and his trousers torn. Mr Kitching commenced laughing, and treated the matter contemptuously; turned abruptly, and walked into the shop, saying he never knew the dog to bite anyone before. Witness had not an opportunity of showing him the bite. Proceeded on his way to Grahamstown and in a short time after felt a smarting pain, and something trickling down his leg, and on looking found blood issuing from the bite. Fearing that poison had. been inserted from the dog's teeth, immediately went to Mr Hall, chemist, snd had it dressed. By night the leg commenced to swell, and the pain increased to such an extent that witness scarcely slept. Fearing that it would lay him up, instructed his solicitor to write to Mr Kitching, informing of that fact, of which he took no notice, and hence the reason for issuing a summons. Witness had occasion to exert himself in a case of emergency and over-treating the blood, causing the wound to break out again, consequently he was obliged a second time to go to Mr Hall and hare it dressed. He was still suffering, and found it rery inconvenient in his ordinary business pursuits. Had not brought this action with a view to any personal advantage, for should the Court award any damages, it was his intention to hand the same over for charitable purposes. On the other hand, he merely wished to show that Mr Kitcbing or any other person should not treat the matter as a joke, for if he had been bitten and suffered so much he would think it no joke. Mr Miller, in his defence pointed out the state of the law. The Borough of Thames was an exceptional ease, for the law passed last year was not in force, and as it repealed the Act of 1865 the only law in existence was the £nglish Act, and that required it to be proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the dog was a vicious animal, and th» owner was aware of the fact. As these facts had not been E roved he contended that the Court would aye to dismiss the case.

His Worship held the views of Mr Miller as bearing on the case, and dismissed it. . Court adjourned.