[Before C. A. Wray, Esq., R.M.]
SHEEP ACT. W. G. Rees, Sheep Inspector, laid a charge against "W. T. Denuiston under the Sheep Act for exposing for sale m a public saleyard 398 sheep infested with lice. Mr Denniston wrote pleading ignorance of the charge. Mr D. Thomas appeared for defendant, who is a southern dealer, and explained that the sheep had been sold as freezarHto.au Ashburton buyer, who declined to take delivery. The sheep were then put into Mr Thomas' hands to dispose of, who sold them m the open market. In the first sale the sheep were outside the Act, but m the second (the one his principal knew nothing of until it was effected) they might come under the Act's provisions. His Worship had no choice but to inflicfc a fine of 20s, without costs. CIVIL CASES. Keeley v. Primmer, claim £3 15s, for grazing sheep. Judgment for amount, with costs. P. Kelleherv M. Scanlon. Mr Wilding appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Crisp for the defendant. This was a claim for £17—£15 m money alleged to have been given by Kelleher to Scanlon to invest for him m the Post Office Savings Bank, but which had not been accounted for by defendant, with interest accrued on the amount. The defendant said he lied received £10 from plaintiff to lodge m the Savings Bank for him. This money had been afterwards withdrawn from the bank and paid over to Kelleher, and these two transactions represented all the money business between the parties. The plaintiff stated that he had given Scanlon £15 m notes to pay into the Savings Bank for him, and had received £5 back from him. Scanlon had made various promises to repay the balance but 'had not done so. After counsel had addressed the bench his Worship gave judgment for 2s 7d of interest admitted to, be owing by defendant. The Court then rose.
Permanent link to this item
MAGISTERIAL., Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2473, 24 July 1890
MAGISTERIAL. Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2473, 24 July 1890
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.