DISTRICT COURT.—Monday.

Auckland Star, Volume I, Issue 121, 30 May 1870, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.— Monday.

(Before His Honor T. Beckham, Judge.) The usual bi-monthly sitting of this Court was held to-day. GHLION V. COTTSBNS. Mr. Bees said this case, which has occupied the attention of the Court, was settled. IMMIGRATION BONDS. Gillies v. Mary James and Michael Maher ; claim £48. The same v. Downes and Donnelly and another; £80. The same v. Sykes and Mitson; £24. Che same v. McQuay, £32. The same v. John Bass; £24 The same v. John Armstead and Thomas Bailey ; £26. The same v. Southgate and Althorpe ; £5. The same v. Joll and Harris; £14. The same v. Boland and Grigg; £30. The same v. Hawkesley, Molloy, and Brennan; £18. Mr. Hesketh appeared on behalf of the Provincial Grovernment. Judgment was given for plaintiff in each case. HTTNTER AND GO. V. DONOVAN Mr. J. B. Russell appeared for the plaintiffs. David Nolan said the defendant was indebted to the firm in the sum of £29 14s 7d, which amount was still due and owing. Judgment for plaintiffs. MITCHELL V. DE HIBSCH. Claim, £51 7s. The defendant was called, but did not appear. The plaintiff proved the work done. Judgment for plaintiff. MUST AND CO. V. ATKINSON. Claim, £23 5s 6d. Mr. MacCormick appeared for plaintiffs. A clerk in the employment of plaintiffs pi'oved the debt, and judgment passed for plaintiffs. BANK OF AUSTRALASIA V. MAGENTA GOLD MINING COMPANY. Mr. J. B. Russell said the sheriff's bailiff had served the writ, and the judgment was unsatisfied. His Honor made the order to wind up the company. THE SAME V, HALCYON GOLD MINING COMPANY. Mr. Eussell said that arrangements were being made to relieve the Court of any trouble in this matter. Adjourned for a fortnight. POSTER V. TWEEDSIDE GOLD MINING COMPANY. Claim, £63 8s Sri. Mr. Weston appeared for the plaintiff. Mr. Porter, wholesale ironmonger, proved the debt, and judgment passed for plaintiff. THE SAME V. HAND-IN-HAND GOLD MINING COMPANY. Claim, £63 3s lOd. This was a case precisely similar, and judgment was given for plaintiff. Defended Case, hancock v. lewis. Hr Hesketh appeared for plaintiff; Mr. Wynn appeared for defendant. This was a plaint to recover damages from an auctioneer for not completing the sale of a quantity of beer in hogsheads. 'i'here was a verbal error in the declaration, and the counsel for plainliff asked that it might be amended. Mr. Wynn objected to amendment of declaration at this stage of the proceedings except "upon terms." Adjourned to next Court day. ARTHUR V. LOCKWOOD. There was no appearance by plaintiff, and a nonsuit was recorded. DUFFY AND WIFE V. MACREADY. Claim, £100. This was an action to recover damages for injury done to the wife, in consequence of a bite from a dog, the property of the defendant. The defence was that the injury was not done in a public place or highway ; that the plaintiff (wife) was on the premises without leave of defendant. From the statement of the plaintiff's counsel it appeared that Margaret Duffy went to Mr. Macready's hotel, (the " Star," Albert-street) on Sunday, in December last, for the purpose of getting some beer. She entered the premises by a side gateway, and it was in crossing the yard that the alleged injury was sustained. Mr. T. Macready said on the day in question he looked into the yard and saw a woman on her knees. Knew the woman as Mrs. Gieeson, not as Mrs. Duffy. Witness could not say which dog inflicted the injury. Had throe dogs two small white poodles, and a black Newfoundland puppy. Did not know which dog did the injury. His servants supposed it might have been the Newfoundland dog. Kept him occasionally on the chain, but he was loose on the day in question, being a Sunday. Had the dog for the purpose of watching the yard at night. When " ragamuffins or strangers " entered the yard the log would make a noise, but not when respectable persons passed through. The woman witness saw was " apparently half drunk." Could not say what the woman entered the yard for. Never had received complaints about the dog. The dog was not more than six months old at the time of the occurrence. Mrs. Macready was called for the plaintiff, but Mr. Russell objected to her being put in the witness-box unless she had been properly subpoenaed and her expenses were paid. The objection was overruled. The witness said she did not know a Mrs. Duffy. Knew a Mrs. Grleeson, who was called Mrs. Duffy. Saw a bite in her leg Did not know how it happened. Plaintiff said the dog had bit her. Believed she came for beer, bat there was no beer served to her. There was a muzzle got for the dog. Did not know why. The dog was not in the habit of rushing at people. It would rush at " dirty ragged people." John Duffy, examined by Mr. Hesketh : ' On Sunday, the sth December, my wife went to the Star Hotel, Albert-street, for some beer. She was brought back by a girl named Caroline, one of Mr. Macready's servants. She said she had been bitten by a clog. Saw the wound. I could put my four fingers and thumb into the wound. Mrs. Macready came shortly afterwards with some brandy to wash the wound. Mrs. Maci*eady bathed the wound with brandy. My wife was laid up J for five weeks in consequence of the hurt. My wife complains of the consequences of the bite even now. Dr. Lee attended her, and sent in a bill with a demand for £10 Is. He sued me, and judgment went against me. The bailiffs came to my house. Access to the hotel was obtained through the side gate. Had seen many customers go in that way. Believed it was the way the public entered. I get a i living with a " truck." \ (Left sitting). I