RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT. This Day.

Auckland Star, Volume V, Issue 1378, 10 July 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT. This Day.

(Before. Thomas Beckham, Esq., R.M.) JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS. Matthew H. Roe v. Newman, £7 2s ; Coigrave and Co. v. Colman Burke, £6 19a 6d; Borley v. John Brame, £1 3a ; Darid Bloom v. R. R. Campion, £2 9a 3d; Alexander Maokie v. Smith, £5 3s 4d ; Joseph Craig v. John Gardner, £2 6s; John Savory y. George Evans, £3 16s. RYAN V. SCOXT."'- ' . Thia was a claim for £20, made by a son of the famous Mrs Ryan, of cow-straying eel* ■ brity, against the captain of the Hyltoa Castle for damages sustained through a dog belonging to the vessel biting him, on the 3rd April. Mr Alexander appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Hesketh for the defendant. ■ j | The plaintiff said he went on board tnr defendant's vessel on the day in question to sell milk. The dog flew at him, and bit him in the leg. He did hot interfere with th« dog. - ■ • * . Mr Hesketh submitted that the action could not lie, inasmuch as a ship was not a public place. . ' His Worship held the objection to be »**'» and the plaintiff agreed to accept a non-suit. m'call v. gxtildford.—.quabbblsomb ; NEIGHBOURS., - •■ Mr Laishley appeared for; the defendant and :; •' Mr Hesketh for the complainant. > This was an action for damages, £2, illstamed in consequence of the defend *nt shooting some of plaintiffs fowlaii ' yk tooa' ter, value 10s, and others. / l * Tha defence was justi{ : W$ h»* ■ full notice had been, giv<sL VTVRT/fo xt' ia that the fowls must be shot ii -. $-trefp*«- ■ passed. ■ r . .-.-. ; .-. ■ • . The defendant was placed in the fen** box, and admitted shootingone fowl oa «w 30th April. He did not shootany more. H« was a very bad shot, and had to go very v*¥ to get a Bhot at anything. He had shotpf pheasants before in the same paddocks/ M* not at fowl8.;v;, j ( i j^ His Worship suggested that perhaps defendant might have aimed at something"*^ and hit the fowls as he was such a bad ihpt. :, Defendant said "|Jo.'? He was quit? sure, that no other fowls bad be». shot by him. He afterwards admittw that he had inatraotje, d his son ta shoot Wl* other fowls, and lie believad h« \aA doo'.l^ He had given xftmnlainant full notice wM

\( hia fowls trespassed ho should shoot them. The notice was read, an dran aa follows :-r"Whou April 23 1874 ■ Mr W McCaul Sir i hereby infarm you that Any Fowls Duoka and Aapacialy . Geese found Trespassing in My Paddock will Be Destroyed after this Date. £&xsi#r~^ J# Guil(iford The P^S|vJp§& v examined, and detailed in very awjpE'rug style his finding of the dead hod'sJjß,,4' the slaughtered innocents. He wh^fi^iJenied that his fowls did any damage tev / defendant's paddock. If it had been geese he had shot he should not have thought anything about it. He was quite sure he was not over-estimating the value of the fowls. They were" all of them very good sorts, and laid all the year round. He did not eat the carcases to his knowledge. RiMrs McCaul gave evidence in support of her husband. fe The case was spun out to a great length, and a number of witnesses were called. The case was eventually settled out of Court.