SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume XLV, Issue 7123, 20 July 1888, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANCO. Thursday, July 19. [Before his Honor Mr Justice Ward.] The Court opened at 11 a. in. CROW V PALMER.

Mr Wilding for appellant and Mr Hay for respondent. . ,■>-■■'< - This was an appeal from a decision given in the Resident Magistrate's Court, Teniuka. The parties were both fanners, and it appeared that on April 12th th* appellant was engaged in erecting a ch-ff-cutter'on a property on which sheep were grazed at so much per week by respondent.„ The appellant had a dog with biny andtt chased and worried some of the resptm* . dent's sheep grazing on the property. __• respondent, who had been out shooting* came up and shot the dig, after appellant had recovered it, claiming he bad a right to do so under sections 13 and 17 of the Dog Registration Act, ISB9. Appellant broughi an action against respondent in the Resident Magistrate's Court, Temuka. for £6, the value of the dog, and the Justices who heard the caise gave judgment for Crow without costs, on the ground that Palmer was justified in shooting the dog, under the sections of the Act mentioned! as the -. shooting took place so soon after the worrying as to make it in their opinion aU one act. * '

Mr .Wilding's grounds for the appeal were that the dog was not shot till ten minutes after the worrying took place and that Palmer was not the owner or agent of the owner of the property within the meaning of section 13 of the Act. :, Learned counsel having addressed the Court, His Honor said it seemed to him that unless the destruction of the dog waa -» ; take place at the time when it was worrying the sheep, there was no limit to the time within which It might M destroyed. He would hold that M the dog bad ceased from attacking the sheep, the respondent had no right to shoot it, and that the. respondent WM not justified in doing so as the agent <* Swainey Bros., the owners of the pW* perty. The appeal was upheld, and Jndg* ment ordered to be entered up for plaintiff for £5, the amount of the claim, togeth*with cost;* of the appeal. WILSON V SOMMERTON. '

I Mr Bowman for appellant, Mrßruge* I for respondent. This was an appeal from a deciatogiven in tho Resident Magistrate's Court Christchurch. The appellant bad elect** to be nonsuited in the lower Court, a» tot Resident Magistrate refused to adjourn the Court to allow him to call rebuttinff evidence. \_ ; . His Honor considered that the appellant was thereby estopped from proceeding _*' the Supreme Court. ; ' Mr Bowman's argument was that tM appellant had been forced Into accepting* nonsuit, otherwise the Magistrate would have given judgment against him. Mr Bruges said the appellant had nat-v rally confessed judgment in the lower Court, and he held that the appellant WW therefore debarred from appeal. After argument, i His Honor said he could not uphold tn» appeal ou the grounds stated, A magi** trate could not be compelled to adjourn* case for the purpose of having witnesses called who were not present. He haddi** cretionary powers as to what evidence _•» should hear. ; Mr Bowman applied that the case might be adjourned, in order to give bin* <■**•' opportunity to amend his motion. _ Mr Bruges submitted his learned friend; had no grounds upon which to base _U application for leave to amend his motion** unless it were that the facts had not been fully set out. After further argument bis Honor dla* missed the appeal on its merits with odata.