ASHBURTON — Friday, August 13. (Before Mr. F. Guinness, R.M.) James Fisher, defended by Mr. O’Reilly, was charged with being drunk and disorderly. The offender was the defendant in a civil case last Tuesday, and being in a state of intoxication when attempting to give evidence, had been given in charge by his Worsnip. Fined LI. Four first offenders were fined 55., or the alternative of twenty-four hours. Thomas Nolan and Jeremiah Hefferman were brought up on remand charged with . the larceny of some trees from the Ashburton Domain. Mr. Purnell for the prosecution. Mr. O’Reilly, for defendants, asked for a further remand, to allow of time to communicate with an important witness in Timaru. His Worship granted a further remand, but said it was to be understood this one would be final, and the case would go on next Tuesday without fall. • > A DOG- CASE. • '; ■' Chambers v, James. Mr. Crisp for, plaintiff; Mr. Purnell for defendant.;. This was an action-by which the plaintiff sought to recover a dog which he alleged was wrongfully detained by the defendant. There was a claim of L 5 for damages sustained through plaintiff being deprived of the services of the animal. Plaintiff gave evidence that a man named Smart gave him a dog last May twelve months. Lost the dog from Highbank. Heard that George James had the dog in his possossion. Saw the defendant three or four months since in Ashburton. Defendant told witness he had not got the dog in town. Next morning, saw the dog in the possession the defendant. Demanded the dog, but defendant said he would not be done with it before two months. Witness had never sold the dog. Valued the dog at Ll 5. Had suffered a deal of inconvenience from not having the dog. By Mr. Parnell—-Smart is not m Ashburton. He gave me the dog at Longbeach. Smart’s brother was there. Smart told me to stick to the dog. I have not registered the dog for this year. I could not register the dog, because it was out ot my possession. Lost the dog eight months ago. Took no steps to find the dog. Do not know when the dog was born ; but think it to be about four years old. No one was present at the conversation when I claimed the dog from defendant. Have not heard that the dog belongs to a man named Hazzard. By Mr. Crisp—The reason why 1 did not advertise for the dog was because I thought it would go back to Longbeach.
David Smart said lie was brother to John Smart, who is not in the district now. My brother gave the dog in dispute to Mr. Chambers in my presence. My brother was going away at the time. He also gave Chambers a receipt at the same time.
By Mr. Parnell —I am living with Chambers.
George James said he found the dog in the township about eight months ago. The dog followed me. I first found that the dog was following me when I got to Dromore. Registered the dog on 24th April, 1880. Chambers claimed the dog when I had had it about three or four months. Ho told mo that Smart, who was in California, had left the dog with his mother, and that when he sent for her, she was to take the dog with her to him. A man named Hazzard also claimed the dog. Chambers never produced any receipt for the payment of registration fee.
By Mr. Crisp —I have never stated that the dog was worth LlO. Chambers offered me a LI note in payment of expense which I had been to for registration fee. He told me at the Somerset Hotel that he had bought 3,000 sheep, and wanted the dog. I told him that I was busy with it, and that he could not have it yet.
By Mr. Purnell—Several persons have had the dog. If Chambers had proved to me in conversation that the dog was his, I should have relinquished any claim to it. Understood that Hazzard would have been hero this morning.
Thomas Ireland said he had been accustomed to act as judge of dogs at shows, both in Australia and Dunedin. By the dog’s mouth, I should think it was not more than two years old. Br Mr. Crisp—Have been a judge of greyhounds, terriers, bull dogs, sheep dogs, and nearly every other kind of dog. By the Bench—There is no mark in a dog’s mouth like there is in a horse’s, by which its age can be told. By Mr. Crisp—Do not think the dog is over two years of age. There are no marks on a dog’s teeth to denote what age a dog is.
Council having addressed the Bench, His Worship gave judgment, ordering|the dog to be restored to Chambers, but he would not allow the damages. In default of the dog being given up, the sum of L 5 must be paid. Defendant to pay costs, L2 17a.
Defendant elected to pay the L 5 ; but as the dog was in Court, his Worship said the dog must be given up. Mr. Purnell objected to his Worship amending the judgment, but the Bench stated that until the judgment was entered up, it had the power to amend. Mr. Purnell said that to save any trouble, his client would give up the dog. unpaid rates. Wakanui Road Board v. Smith.— Claim L2 55., for unpaid rates. Mr. Wilkie, Collector to the Board, appeared for plaintiffs, Mr. Crisp for the defence. Mr. Wilkie stated that this was a test, case brought by the Board to prove the liability of the owner of property to pay rates in default of the occupier so doing. Mr. Wilkie read the clause of the Act bearing on the case, and stated that Risely Bros,, who were the occupiers of the property for which the rates were liable, were insolvent. He had made a verbal application to the defendant for the amount sued for.
E. M. Buchanan also gave evidence to the effect that he had twice asked for the money from defendant. Mr. Crisp asked for a nonsuit on several points. In the first place the authority to sue, which had been put in by Mr. Wilkie, purported to be signed by the Chairman and Clerk to the Board, whereas there was no evidence before the Court that these signatures wore genuine. Again, he argued, that it had not been proved that the signatures of those officers were a sufficient authority. Mr. Wilkie referred the Bench to the Canterbury Roads Ordinance, under the provisions of which nearly all the Road Boards were working, which empowered the Chairman and Clerk of a Board to give the necessary authority to sue, and if the case were-adjourned for a couple of hours, the Clerk of the Road Board would be able to be present and produce the minutebook of the Board containing the resolution empowering him (Mr, Wilkie), to sue. 1
Mr. Crisp read the clause of the Rating Act which repealed the Canterbury Roads Ordinance referred to by Mr. Wilkie. He (Mr. Crisp), claimed a nonsuit on another point, and that was that the defendant had not received a written notice demanding payment of the rates. Under the Act this was absolutely necessary.
Mr. Wilkie argued that a written notice was not required-
His Worship said the points raised by Mr. Crisp regarding the signatures of the Clerk and Chairman, and of the authority which Mr. Wilkje had to sue might be got over by an adjournment of the case, but the latter point raised, referring to the necessity of a written notice being served, was fatal to the case, and hence he had no alternative but to nonsuit the plaintiffs,
RAKAlA. —Thursday, Aug. 12.
Before Mr. F. Guinness, R.M., and Mr. Mackie, J. P. ! ■ . ; CIVIL CASES.
Milner and Thompson, v. E. Clark. Mr. Slater for plaintiffs. ' Plaintiffs sued defendant for L2O, amount of 'a bill of sale—T. E. Fagan to Milner and Thompson, Christchurch. Defendant bought the piano at an auction at Fagan’s, under a distraint in a suit Saunders Bros, against Fagan. At the time of sale Fagan announced that there was a bill of sale over the piano to the amount of L2O, when the bailiff who was selling started the bidding at L2O, to cover the bill of sale, telling the audience that he would hold the purchaser harmless; as regards the bill of sale. The piano was ultimately knocked down to defendant for L 25. After hearing several witnesses for che defence, his Worship said, however hard the case might be for defendant, he felt himself bound to give judgment for plaintiffs with costs L 5 14s. 6d. ' ■ Lake v. Sharp—Case adjourned to next Court day, defendant to pay cost of adjournment. 1 Orr and Co. v. Mason —Osborne v. Mason—Mutter v. Slight. Judgment by default in each case.
Cox v. Raisbeck —Judgment for plaintiff. ■
Mutter v. Simmonds - Judgment for plaintiff, defendant to pay L2 a month or in default fourteen days imprisonment.
Permanent link to this item
R.M. COURTS., Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 139, 14 August 1880
R.M. COURTS. Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 139, 14 August 1880
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.