R.M. COURT, HAMILTON.

Waikato Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2089, 26 November 1885, Page 2

R.M. COURT, HAMILTON.

WH.nvKsnu.— (Before His Worship the Mayor and Mr John Knox, J.P. ) IiKKVO! OK H\U.\\ \\ KE(SL'LVriO\s. Dwii) (Jkmmiu., of Claudelands, was charged, on the lnfuriii.ition of (juard ttpratt, with having, on the 31>t October last, comiiutti'd a broach of sub-section 4 of action lUi of the Public Work-! Act, ISK2, by know ingly and wilfully driving .1 w.iggon ovei the cm-sing near the Hamilton West railway station while an engine, with cairiagus attached, was appio.iclnng, and within one quarter of a mile. —Mi \V. M. Hty piosoeuted — Defend mt pleaded guilty, .md stated th it he did not see the train until it was ne.nly upon him, when he thought it the safest pi in to whip uj> hi-* hoi si-, and cross the line —Mr Hay piessed foi an cxnmpl uy pen.tltv, his iu«tiuitions Imng ti> do so. Ho- said th.it it was a \erv d mgi'iuiis pi ictiro tndnve m front of an nppioaching ti am, dangeious alike to the diner and to the peisoiisin the train. The penalty should be -well .is to detei otheisfiom committing a like offence. The defendant eM-iped destruction only by a few inclios. Th' Bench reserved tlieii judgment, and latei in th" day dismissed the defendant with :i caution. Mi Hay contended this could not b" done as he had pleaded guilty. It was ecjunaleiit to the bench "aying he was not guilty. A coiniction was then lecordid. Mr Hay then asked foi cists, urging th it the ca«.r> was a highly piopei one to bi; pioseouted. The Banoh agieed to tin-, but declined to give co-t», as they thought the oliencc was committed accidentally. Cl\ll CW«n. (i. A. Rlncimw \. T. Mookk.— Claim £2 l">s ."id. Judgment by default for amount and co^ts, l.Vi. .Svmk \. Jv«». Coomhev— Claim £1 10s lid. Judgment by default for amount and Costs, l")s. I). Ei.uorr v. J\s. Pitocrru.— Claim £<> 10s, amount of j ulginent summons. Mr Hay for plnintilf. Ad]uurncd until next comt d.iy to gi\o defendant .in opportunity to como to somo arrangement with plaintiff. Houomonv W\h\mi \. Or.nitoii).— Claim t'll ; damages for shooting and injuimg a how. Mi H.iy foi plaintilf, Mi O'Neill foi defendant. The paitieulais s L .t out loss of services of hoi-»e, deeiease of its \ .due medic d attendance, and outi ige to pi lintiff's feeling-, and claimed £1 I foi tinwhole witlunit apportioning it. Mi O Neill objected that the particulars wvie not explicit under the 31st sec Resident Magistrate Act, 18(i7, and defendant hail no oppoitnnity of paying m money on each item. Mr Hay contended tint he was not bound to give p.n Liculr.i s of damage unljss he claimed special damage, which he did not m thi-s case. The paiticulam as they htood amply complied with the section cited. Thoy claimed tint the hoisc had been injuied by defendant and the t'll was the \aluc of the injuiy. Jle quoted se\eial precedents from Cunningham and Mattmsoifs piecedents in pleading. The objection was oveiruled. — Tho plaintiff was called, and stated that ho saw defendant shoot the horse on the morning of the ."ith November, inst. Itne.uly fell, and then galloped to tho settlement. When he caught it the neck and Hhoulders were bleeding piofn>ely. He claimed A.T) for loss of service of tho horse, £3 for depreciation in \alue, £1 for medial attendance, and £5 foi annoyance and outiagc to his feeling'!. Defendant subsequently offerred to buy the horse for £8, and oftVred £5 if ho would withdraw the case.— Hone Patene and Heieiek.i Kokena gavo coiroborative evidence, which closed the plaintiff's case. — Defendant admitted shooting the horse, but stated that plaintifi did not bee him do so. Ho shot it with pea-, at 15 or 20 yards distance. The valuo of the horse was not more than £2. Ho had offered tho plaintiff £"> to withdraw tho case. The hoi so was tiespas«ing. In cross-examination he admitted that it wat. a cruel thing to do. — Chillies Oldroyd g.i\o similar evidence. J. Sunderland was present when defendant n»ked plaintiff to keep hm hoises off his farm, and ho (plaintiff) pnmiiscd to do "-o. — C. Sodei green deposed that tke liomo was not woith moie thin t'l ."is ; he was very old, and his legs weie crone. In cioss examination he stated that ho know the mirks in ,i horse's mouth ; as tho hoi so got oldei tho marks got smaller ; they weie black mniks, (Witness heie drew a diagiam of a four year-old hoise's mouth, with marks. Thoio weie only four teeth.) He know a good deal about a horse. Knew what a splint was : it came on the leg ; did not know much about a ctub : thought it timii on the nose ; knew what a. miX bone was ; did not know what .v spas in \va«i ; knew what :i hock was, but not what a capped hock was, Ifo thought the horse'.s feet weie puffed. It Wi is a sign a hoi so was done when his legs puffed — (t Kdgecumbe valued the horso at £2. — Defendant closed his case —The Bench gavo judgment for £(!, each paity to pay his own costs. ____^_____^_^___

Fencing nntori.il at lowest rates a 1 the new \vh irf, CambridgeMrJ .S Hucklnml Ins been fnourod with mstnutions from Mrs I'arsons who is leauntf for Melbourne, to -.ell ,it her residence, Cambridge, on tlin 1 1th December the whole bf hor fir^t-clnss Enpli'.h made lurmture, wiggoncitc and pair, riding horsck Bee, &c.