RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HAMILTON.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 2665, 10 August 1889, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HAMILTON.

Thursday.—-(Before Oapt. Jackson, R.M,) A fkw small debt cases were dealt with, DAJf.UiEH. Sinclair v. (Jouook. —Claim £7, value of two .sheep dog pups poisoned by defendant. Mr O'Neill for plaintiff, and Mr Dyer for defendant. The evidence ef the plaintiff and his witnesses showed that on the Oth June last, two pups, which were in a loose box at the Woodlands station, and which were the property of the plaintiff, were poisoned by defendant. The pups were fed on new milk from the station. Defendant hudf Wen an order to Martin, the owner of the litter of pups, except those he wanted, and ho did so, only leaving tlio l.wo he had,sold to plaintiff, and which ho was rearing. At the time plaintilF bought the pups he paid Hi each for them, and one of the witnesses valued them when poisoned at about All 10s each. Jiad pJaintilF known defendant wanted the pups removed, he would have taken them away, but defendant had nerer .spoken to him about them. —Defendant admitted having poisoned the pups, as they were a nuisance on the place, using the new milk when they had to go short at the house. Ho had repeatedly told the men that they had plenty dogs, and had told Martin to get rid of those pups, as he thought Martin iva* the owner, he owning the mother of the piip.K. Some time previous he had told him only to keep two dogs, and he would shout any of his if ho had more. Valued the milk, which was bis private property, consumed by the pupa at about £3 3*, milk being very scarce at that time. He valued the pups at 10s each. Did not know the pops were plaintiff's until plaintiff accused him <sf poisoning them. Dismissed defendant for kbejiinj/ t lie pups and using the milk.—Counsel for tue defence pleaded that the value of the milk should be taljen into consideration in mitigation of damages, but tjio plaintiff's counsel claimed that this coujd not bo done, and that the only claim for mitigation of damages would bo proof that the pups were not of tha value claimed.—His Worship gave judgment, for plaintiff for £'t 10s, and costs t'l 17».