Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.


• ASHBURTON— Friday, March 5. (Before Mr. F. Guinness, R.M.) NEGLECTED CHILDREN. Three children named Dudley, aged 9, 6, and 4, were charged with being “neglected children.” Constable Beaumont deponed that the father, R. Dudley, had been drinking heavily for some weeks, and the children were in the habit of spending their time running about the streets. He had visited the house, and it was in a filthy condition. Complaints bad been made by the neighbors. The children were very dirty and ragged. John Candish, boardinghouse keeper— Lived next door. He believed the children were well fed, but Dudley when drunk used very bad language. When he was sober he was a good father, but lately he had been drinking very heavily. Dudley denied using bad language when drunk. F. Nelson, sworn—l know the children, and have hoard the father using had language to them. When he is drinking they run about the streets without anyone to look after them. R. Dudley, sworn—l am a well-sinker Have been out looking for work lately. I get in a woman to wash once a week. The magistrate said that he could order the children to be sent to the reformatory, and he asked Dudley what he could pay to support them. Dudley said he could pay nothing. He had brought the smallest up from eight months old. The magistrate said he could not say they looked like starved children. He did not like to take them from the father, but he would dismiss the case, and request the police to report on it again in a fortnight. civil cases. C. Braddell v. H. B. Johnstone. —Claim L 8 16s. 2d. Amount paid into court. Costs allowed, H 3a.

Poyntz v. Prosper.—Claim LG 16s. 2d S. E. Poyntz deposed to the’amount being due. The defendant, who was very deaf, after a deal of shouting to make him hear, explained that the claim was for stakes delivered, and the dispute between the parties was ns to whether the stakes were delivered inside or outside the bush, the value being 9s. per 100 in the bush, or 11s. outside. Defendant swore to the delivery outside the bush. Judgment for L 5 14s. 2d., and costs Li lls. a cow CASE. Little v. Dully.—Claim L2O, for breach of warranty in purchase of two cows. Mr. Branson for plaintiff, Mr. O’Reilly for defendant. Robert Little, sworn—l purchased two cows from defendant for Ll 3. The receipt produced was signed by Duffy, who delivered them. They were sold as being in calf. I have had them ever since. One of them lias not calved. I saw the cows in Duffy’s paddock on January Bth, and thought they were both springing. I agreed to give him Ll 3 when they were delivered at my house at the Hinds. They were brought to mo on the 10th. I have had to hand feed the cow, which has not calved. The cost has been about L 4 4s. The other cow gives about four gallons per cloy. I don’t think the cow would fetch more than L 3 now. By Mr. O’Reilly.—My attention was n< t drawn to the cow being in milk by Hickey. I told him to tell Duffy I wanted to see him, I can swear the cow was not in calf when delivered to me. For the defence, William Crow, farmer, Coldstream, deponed to seeing the cows three days previous to Little buying them. They were both in calf, and ought to have calved about a week afterwards. By Mr. Branson—The cows were in a tussock paddock which had flax in one corner. Cows will sometimes plant tluir calves in flax. I have a calf in my paddock which don’t belong to me. It came out of the paddock in which the cows were throe days after the cows were sent away, and it was about three or four days old. I did not tell or send word to Little till Feb. Stb. John Hickey, laborey, deponed to Little haying told him to tell Duffy to come and take the cow away, as ho thought she had calved. I don’t know much about cows myself. Rosanna Paget deponed to having seen the cow in question out of Little’s paddock, and being chased about. P. Duffy, the defendant, also gave evidence. Counsel having addressed the Bench, his Worship said that from the evidence it was plain to him that the cow had calved previous to the sale, and although she may have been sold in ignorance of the fact, he would give damages for the difference in the present value of the cow, L 3 ; for the extra feed of the cow for eight weeks, L 4 4s. ; loss of milk, Ls—total damages Ll2 45., and costs L2 Bs.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

Bibliographic details

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT., Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 70, 6 March 1880

Word Count

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 70, 6 March 1880